The story of Joe Volpe playing some sort of inverted Santa Claus and accepting gifts from children is interesting:

The national Liberal Party said yesterday it has no reason to investigate donations to leadership candidate Joe Volpe from current and former executives of a generic drug firm and their relatives, but some Liberal MPs said they have qualms about accepting money from minors.

Mr. Volpe has received donations of $5,400 each from five current and former executives of Apotex Inc. and 15 of their relatives, including some who are under 18.

But the real interesting thing here is not that Volpe and his supporters are playing fast and loose with the rules. It's about who is giving the money:

Apotex chairman Barry Sherman, his wife Honey, and four of his children each donated $5,400, as did Apotex president Jack Kay, his wife Patricia, and two of his children.

A former vice-president of Apotex, Allen Shechtman, his wife Mary, and three of his children, also donated $5,400. Mr. Shechtman told The Globe on Monday that not all of the donors are adults, but did not specify their ages. He did not return a telephone call yesterday.

Bernard "Barry" Sherman of Apotex is a well known name. Apotex is a maker of generic drugs, and as such, is involved in intense lobbying. "Intense" is definitely a word used to describe Barry Sherman:

Sherman's tactics have made him infamous in the industry. Everyone has a Barry Sherman story. His associates praise his brilliance and integrity. His detractors say he has a chip on his shoulder, that he's paranoid, bombastic, opportunistic. Paul Lucas, president of Glaxo Wellcome Inc., the Canadian arm of Glaxo Wellcome PLC, the world's largest pharmaceutical company, calls Sherman's conspiracy theories "ludicrous." Apotex and Novopharm together control the Canadian generic market in what amounts to an oligopoly, Lucas argues. Even Dan [Leslie Dan, the chairman of the generic goliath Novopharm Ltd], who juggles his personal dislike for Sherman with the interests they share as independent generic manufacturers, says Sherman's litigious, bulldog approach has not been constructive for the sector.

Physician and pharmaceutical entrepreneur Morton Shulman, who has tussled with Apotex several times over the years, has called Sherman "the only person I have ever met with no redeeming features whatsoever."

Nice company Volpe keeps. To be fair, Sherman has some choice words for his competitors too, and as a generic drug manufacturer, his products, which can sell for nearly 20% less than the brand name drugs, have saved the health care system millions.

But then, profitability is what drives the big multi-nationals to find new drugs.

Still, Sherman is more than just a guy looking to make more affordable drugs. He pushes the envelope and gets in trouble for it. Remember that fellow Shechtman who also gave money to Volpe (along with his wife and his three kids, not all of whom were adults)? Shechtman was described as a former VP of Apotex. So two families are donating to Volpe?

Turns out it is the same family, and that Shechtman and Sherman are as close as only two guys who have had run-ins with the FBI can be:

There was also that small clash with the FBI and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration over a mail-order scheme Sherman engaged in with his brother-in-law, Allen Shechtman. It involved a Bahamas-based company called Medicine Club International Inc., which mailed Apotex-manufactured generic drugs, including generic Prozac and Deprenyl, from Canada to 500,000 households in the United States without prescription. The FBI was allegedly tipped off by U.S. drug manufacturers, no fans of Sherman.

In 1995, Medicine Club pleaded guilty to one count of illegal interstate commerce and was fined $500,000 (U.S.) for selling drugs without approval. It was also forced to pay $339,000 for investigative costs.

So Shechtman and Sherman are brothers-in-law and partners in crime. Eleven members of this extended family has signed cheques to Volpe for $5,400 each.

For a guy who is so hyper-sensitive to jokes relating the Liberals to organized crime, Joe Volpe really doesn't make an effort to avoid the whole "crime family" thing.

But back to the issue of generic drugs and patent protection. Do you think Joe Volpe is going to promote a particular position when it comes to generic drugs?

Bill C-91 was passed by the Mulroney Conservatives in 1993, and it extended patent protection for name brand drugs to twenty years. In part, it was done as a realignment of Canadian laws to meet NAFTA obligations. The Liberals opposed the legislation intensely. True to form, though, when they formed the government in 1993, the Liberals became strong supporters of C-91. This was because the name brand manufacturers are headquartered in Quebec, and any law that guaranteed their profitability was a sure vote-getter in Quebec.

Principles be dammed when votes are to be had, right?

C-91 required that the effect of the new law be reviewed in 1997. By then the Liberals were in power, and so had an opportunity to kill the bill and make it easier for Canadian generic drug manufacturers to make their knock-offs.

The review in 1997 was conducted by David Dingwall, then the Minister of Health, and the end result is that C-91 is still the law of the land today.

Of course, we all remember David Dingwall for getting in trouble in 2005 for accepting $350,000 in continency fees as a lobbyist from Bioniche. Bioniche is, as it turns out, a pharmaceutical company with original discoveries to protect, including drug discoveries.

I'm not passing judgment on C-91. But the money involved in the realm of pharmaceutical patents is huge, and it looks like the players are shopping for potential ministers and prime ministers that can be counted upon to push their side of the debate. And these people are not satisfied with the ethical or financial strengths of their positions -- the stakes are too great. They are willing to throw lots of money around to make sure the right people are convinced the the righteousness of their position.

Liberal David Dingwall was a friend of the name-brand manufacturers, and was caught pulling a $350,000 cookie out of the cookie jar.

Today it looks like the generic drug manufacturers have found another Liberal, leadership candidate Joe Volpe, willing to argue the other side.

Seems like there are no right answers, or even principled positions, when it comes to the Liberal Party. On any issue, you are likely to find a senior member of the party who will take up your cause -- for consideration, of course. And when you don't have principles, accepting money from children is easy.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:18 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 1124 words, total size 8 kb.

Warren Kinsella has been consistent and vociferous in his position that the Gomery Inquiry into the Sponsorship Scandal was a waste. The RCMP could have handled the file and should have handled it, he maintains.

Of course, Kinsella's criticisms are not just about the RCMP being frozen out, but also about Justice Gomery's qualifications and his impartiality, or lack thereof.

But putting aside the particulars about Gomery, it looks like somebody other than the RCMP should have been given the task of investigating the Liberals after all:

The retired civilian watchdog over the RCMP says the Martin government "didn't want any waves" and tried to "shut her up" by offering to continue her salary if she stepped down early.

Shirley Heafey, the lawyer who chaired the RCMP Public Complaints Commission for eight years until last October, said she had a "dreadful" time due to what she called "direct interference" by the Martin government with her independent role.

The interference included being audited "to death" -- a clear misuse of the office of the auditor as a tool for punishing an independent watchdog. That's two strikes against the Martin government, if these allegations are true.

Too bad Anne McLellan lost her seat. She certainly has some explaining to do:

Ms. Heafey singled out what she saw as a lack of co-operation and support by then-deputy prime minister Anne McLellan, who as minister of public safety was responsible for the RCMP.

"She was very, very supportive of the RCMP and she didn't want any waves while the government was in a minority position, and I made waves whenever I had to," commented Ms. Heafey, who during her tenure criticized the RCMP for car chases that injured innocent bystanders and warned of looming disaster if Parliament fails to implement civilian oversight of the Mounties' burgeoning role in national security.

Interestingly, McLellan still has a spokesperson:

[Hilary] Geller, a spokeswoman for Ms. McLellan [and her former chief of staff], denied all of Ms. Heafey's allegations.

"Neither McLellan, myself or anybody in our office tried in any way to tell Shirley what she should or shouldn't do. And I think for her to speculate that Treasury Board audits were somehow Anne McLellan trying to interfere is simply baseless speculation. That's absolutely 100 per cent false."

Ms. Geller stated there was "absolutely not" any desire or attempt by Ms. McLellan or anyone else in the government to avert a public hearing into Kingsclear.

Much of the pressure was applied concerning a probe into a cover up of sexual abuse by an RCMP staff sergeant at the now-defunct Kingsclear youth training centre in New Brunswick.

But imagine if the RCMP had the Sponsorship file. How would that have played out? Would the RCMP have been as diligent in investigating a government that had been so supportive in helping the RCMP cover up their problems?

Indeed, if the RCMP was so tight with Martin, maybe the outcome of their investigation would have focused even more blame on Jean Chretien. As a way of currying favour, perhaps, or paying back a debt. Bears thinking about, especially by those who think Justice Gomery had it in for Jean Chretien.

This also casts the Ralph Goodale announcement in a new light. Recall that right in the middle of the election, a bombshell exploded in the Liberal campaign when the RCMP announced they were conducting a criminal investigation into whether Finance Minister Ralph Goodale or his office had been responsible for leaking the income trust taxation decision ahead of the announcement, allowing key investors to make a tidy profit.

Many people wondered why the RCMP had pulled the pin on that grenade instead of waiting three weeks until after the election. In retrospect, most agree that the Liberals never recovered from that announcement.

Could it be that the RCMP had come to the conclusion that they were too closely tied to a dying Martin government? Could it be that the RCMP decided that unless they made a bold move to separate themselves from the Liberal Party and the Paul Martin government in particular, they ran the risk of being pulled down with them, even if the Liberals limped into a victory in that election? Did the RCMP decide that they needed to make a gesture to the Conservatives in case Stephen Harper won, and the Goodale announcement was the ideal gesture to make?

Ironically, that gesture might have guaranteed a loss for the Liberals. In any case, if Heafey's allegations are true, then there needs to be a serious shake up at the top of the RCMP organization, and that's just a start.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:14 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 793 words, total size 5 kb.

Every once in a while you encounter a story that lets you compare, side by side, the coverage Canadians get from these two major dailies.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 04:04 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 1030 words, total size 8 kb.

Canadian troops are fighting and dying in Afghanistan, in part to prevent the return of the Taliban, a minority who would impose their faith, in particular, an uncompromising brand of Islam, on an unwilling population.

Should it come as a surprise that the same fight is being fought at home?

By defiantly ending speeches with the words, "God bless Canada," [Prime Minister Stephen Harper] affirmed the sentiment expressed in our national anthem and on our coinage, and subtly but unmistakably held up a prominent middle finger to those who are trying to what might be called "atheize" the country.

They complained.

In one poll, 65% of Canadians told him to keep on doing it.

There is a battle being fought in this country against a minority who would impose their faith, in particular, an uncompromising brand of atheism, on an unwilling population.

Canadians generally are not uncomfortable about religious faith. Not deep down. But several decades of imposed atheism supported by the State (often under the guise of multiculturalism) has allowed a minority -- primarily liberal arts academia and their offspring, the media -- to cast Canada as a place where expressions of faith, especially Christian faith, is as welcome as public vomiting.

Here's an example of what they think of "God bless Canada!":

I hadn't realized until recently that Stephen Harper was using "God Bless Canada!" as a tagline for his speeches. Some may think this a harmless, or even beneficent, expression for a politician to use, but for those with knowledge of history, nothing could be a more frightening.

<snipped out all the requisite George W Bush comparisons>

Religion does not belong in public life, and Stephen Harper's efforts to drag it in says a great deal about him to those choosing to listen. This principle is as much a defense of freedom of religion as anything else: millions of Christians have been slain by other Christians over subtle differences of belief.

Religion in politics violates Canadians' traditional political civility. While God may be understood as a translation for Allah or Jehovah, the name is completely unsuitable for those embracing Buddhism or Hinduism or Humanism or no religion at all. This usage opens wounds where none need exist.

[emphasis added]

Got that? Religion is not to be seen, because it is the antithesis of civil behaviour. Note also that one problem is that Buddhists and Hindus would be offended. But then their offense would be a religious expression in of itself, would it not? Isn't being offended by someone's religious expression also a form of religious expression?

Well, Stephen Harper is one person who understands the absurdity of that position. And he won't kowtow to the absurd, no matter how many layers of postmodern bafflegab it gets wrapped up in.

But what is most interesting is that he has allies. A majority of the population who understand that suppressing religious expression is suppressing free speech. Indeed, it is probably the most precious form of free speech we enjoy -- the freedom to perceive the universe and our place in it as we see fit, and to not be embarrassed or persecuted for having and sharing that perception.

Will the forces of militant atheism ever understand that? Not likely, given that they'll never be able to separate the notion of free speech that I'm talking about from their visceral hatred of all things conservative:

"God Bless Canada" is a symbol of the coming realignment with US values. And it doesn't matter if a majority disagree with this shift. In the US, 30 per cent of the population are hard core believers who vote in large numbers and with the Republicans. No other group is so numerous and so united. While in Canada, this group is much smaller, they are getting a historic opportunity to govern as the Liberals and NDP split the shrinking center-left vote.

However, the new Conservatives aren't Tories, but smooth-talking serpents who have slithered out from underneath Prairie rocks to claim their new found dominion. Their wave has been a long time in coming, so we are finally seeing their breakthrough in this election with the United Right swamping the dying Liberal Party.

Ironically, the "smooth-talking serpent" analogy is one of the most ancient and powerful Judeo-Christian images of evil we have. I wonder of "ceti" realizes that he just offended a bunch of Buddhists and Hindus whose culture does not include the story of Genesis. Indeed the Hindus celebrate the Naga Panchami, the festival of snakes. The snake is seen as a symbol of immortality, not of duplicity and temptation.

No matter. The battle is being fought for freedom for Christians and Hindus both, and all people of faith, and it appears that the tide is turning. I expect the counterattacks to be vicious, even violent.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 11:47 AM | Comments (42) | Add Comment
Post contains 803 words, total size 5 kb.

From CTV:

Imagine an invisibility cloak that works just like the one Harry Potter inherited from his father.

Researchers in England and the United States think they know how to do that. They are laying out the blueprint and calling for help in developing the exotic materials needed to build a cloak.

The keys are special manmade materials, unlike any in nature or the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. These materials are intended to steer light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation around an object, rendering it as invisible as something tucked into a hole in space.

I'll try to get some time to read the paper later, but for now, consider the fundamental problem with invisibility. Any system that makes you invisible immediately renders you blind. To see, light has to be absorbed by your retina. That's why the pupils of your eyes are black -- no light is coming back out. But in order to be invisible, light would either pass through you or around you, but either way, the retina would be cheated of the light it needs to function. If you arranged for the eyes to be exempt, you could see, but then everyone around you would see your eyes too, since they would be absorbing and reflecting light in the regular fashion.

A practical invisibility suit might include some sort of radar scanner or sonar that creates an image for the wearer of his surroundings using non-visible radiation or sound, respectively. Of course, you'd still be blind inasmuch as visible light was concerned, but once you were trained up on how to use the radar or sonar display, you might be able to move around, after a fashion.

But then strapping a radar system to a person, transmitter and receiver and power system and computers and displays, and then making the person and his radar invisible, is hardly something that would impress Professor McGonagall. Typical muggle nonsense, she would say.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 05:31 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 2 kb.

1 ...invisible cloaks eh?...still awaiting Scotty to beam them up? Here's a cheaper way, often done by well planned jewel thiefs. Take a picture of the corridor or room and paste it to the camera lens. Or get a sandwich board size picture of stuff behind you...ooooooOOOOh wait, put a 6' LCD screen in front of you and a web cam attached to your butt... Hopefully lens facing outward, might get a bit embarrasing tho...

Posted by: tomax7 at May 25, 2006 05:38 PM (jHhd0)

2 It's a cheap joke, but I thought it was pretty funny, so I thought I'd share (plus, it'll probably make some readers' temperature rise, which is always fun!). Apparently, according to another blog I was reading the cloak already has an enthusiastic customer waiting eagerly for their first shipment. The Harper cabinet.

Posted by: Lord Kitchener's Own at May 25, 2006 07:09 PM (m4pzx)

3 Um... "That's why the pupils of your eyes are black -- no light is coming back out." Sheesh. The pupils of your eyes aren't anything but apertures through which light passes. They're not "black". They're clear, i.e. transparent. That's why they appear red in flash photographs -- because the intense short-term light of the flash has actually illuminated all the blood vessels on the inside back portion of your eyeball. That's why they look milky in people with cataracts -- because the condition is a "clouding" of the eye's crystalline lens, which sits behind the pupil. Your pupil isn't black. It only appears black because, in the vast majority of conditions under which people face each other, the insides of their eyeballs aren't lit up. Your statement is the same thing as saying "That's why the air in your bedroom at night is black." Try again.

Posted by: quasi-not-real-modo at May 26, 2006 09:24 AM (oQmui)

4 ...the light in my bedroom is orange because we got a streetlight outside nearby... ;-) But true on the pupils.

Posted by: tomax7 at May 26, 2006 09:59 AM (jHhd0)

5 The whole "how can you see if you're invisible" problem is trivial, and easily solved if you have the technology to become invisible in the first place. The key is to remember that "invisible" does not mean "transparent" but rather "not able to be seen." There are many things that cannot be seen, not because they are transparent, but because they are small. Imagine a sheet of this super invisible material. Imagine a pinprick in it. Imagine, behind the pinprick, a system of lenses for magnifying and focussing the light coming through. Can you see a pinprick? Yes, if you're close enough and know where to look. But if you don't know it's there, you'll never spot it by accident.

Posted by: 2dave at May 26, 2006 11:03 AM (mB8jr)

6 The actual device would be more like a shield than a cloak that one could wear. It's proposed application is for ships, tanks, aircraft etc. Don't expect to be wearing it anytime soon.

Posted by: Cardstonkid at May 26, 2006 12:26 PM (kvZ4g)

7 Why not an invisibility cloak that's selective? For example, it might let in (and hence, out) a narrow and fluctuating band of ultra-high-frequency EMR. If the Federation doesn't know the code, it might never find the right wavelength except for a nano-second or so. Hi-tech hide and seek. Meanwhile the Romulans are sending out EMR in this manner and reading the echoes. Game over for the USS Enterprise.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 26, 2006 01:35 PM (Rn5Ph)

8 it seems y'all have way too much time on your hands. BTW, I never would have pegged dawg for a trekkie!

Posted by: kelly at May 26, 2006 09:12 PM (/IrGj)

9 nano nano... Oh wait, wrong show. You know about Klingons floating around Uranus eh?

Posted by: tomax7 at May 27, 2006 08:06 AM (jHhd0)

10 Yeah, well, we all have our secret lives, kelly. Live well and prosper.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 27, 2006 08:42 AM (Rn5Ph)

11 Invisibility cloak? Nope, sorry, I don't see that at all.

Posted by: steve d. at May 27, 2006 10:57 PM (sw5R/)

12 To continue with Angry's theme, the logical approach to becoming invisible is to make the other person blind. If I cut your eyeballs out, you're damned right you won't be able to see me. Just a pleasant early-morning thought.

Posted by: Ade at May 28, 2006 03:54 AM (4p91Z)

13 ...but Ade, we could get one of those neat sunglassy type thingies what-his-name work on Spaz Tek, err Star Trek. Although he said in an interview he hated them, hurt his temples... *sigh*

Posted by: tomax7 at May 28, 2006 02:52 PM (jHhd0)

14 ...what I really like to know is how'd they packaged all them invisible bike's in that Fed-Ex commerical. And how do you know you got the right colour?

Posted by: tomax7 at May 28, 2006 02:53 PM (jHhd0)

15 so you place a small sensor through the cloak.. problem solved.

Posted by: winston smith at May 29, 2006 09:57 AM (N1BDW)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

A politician is judged by the electorate.

Seems like a simple enough concept, doesn't it? You make promises, you try to implement them, you show the results, the voters decide.

Short of committing a criminal act, that is the only judgment a politician need submit to.

So what good is an Ethics Commissioner? He is not a judge, at least not in the sense of handing out punishments. His role is to ensure that elected officials and their staff understand the rules for ethical behaviour (a concept that focuses almost entirely on private financial interests versus the public trust, according to the code), most importantly where conflicts of interest arise. It's a bit sad that we have to have someone explain those concepts, but an argument can be made that having one person provide a consistent interpretation (as long as it is a good one) is better than hundreds of different interpretations.

But even if someone is caught in a conflict of interest, the Commissioner can only recommend appropriate "sanctions", which aren't defined. Presumably such sanctions would be limited to requiring an MP to divest himself of a certain financial interest found to be causing a conflict of interest.

Even the implementation of those recommended sanctions is left up to the government, where a political decision is made concerning those sanctions.

But some people don't get it. They think the Ethics Commissioner is some sort of watchdog whose job it is to compel politicians to implement a particular policy or piece of legislation:

The lobby group Democracy Watch has launched a formal complaint with the federal Ethics Commissioner accusing the Conservative government of breaking election promises.

The same letter of complaint also repeats Democracy Watch's call for ethics commissioner Bernard Shapiro to resign for failing to vigorously enforce ethics rules.

Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch said Thursday that Bill C-2 - the federal Accountability Act - breaks or omits 13 specific promises made by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in the run-up to the Jan. 23 vote.

Breaking a promise is not an ethical lapse in the sense defined in the code. It is an ethical problem if the promise was broken because of a financial conflict that had not been disclosed. But it's the financial conflict, and not the promise, that is the concern of the Ethics Commissioner.

How to keep promises, in what order, and which to forgo altogether, are political decisions. Sometimes they are made for reasons of crass political expediency, and sometimes for very obvious pragmatic reasons. Sometimes it becomes clear that the promise was just dumb. Sometimes the promise is kept, but had to be modified in some manner, and people mistakenly think that the promise was not kept.

At the end of the day, though, these are issues of politics, not ethics, at least not in the sense defined by the code. The judgment lies with the voters, not with the Ethics Commissioner. Duff Conacher is way off base by trying to pull the Ethics Commissioner into this.

Oh, and by the way, he is also wasting his time. The Ethics Commissioner only responds to complaints from MPs, not from the public (see 72.08 of the enabling statute). I think Conacher knows this. I think he knows his "complaint" will go into the shredder. I think, though, he is doing this to get press attention. The funny thing is, he has a venue in which to make his concerns known. After second reading, the committee reviewing the bill will accept submissions from the public on how to improve the bill. It's part of how our democracy works. If he knows that his complaint is a waste of time, then Conacher is being a lot more cynical and a fair bit more duplicitous than I would have thought a member of Democracy Watch ought to be.

A final thought. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the scope of the Ethics Commissioner's mandate included evaluating proposed legislation and making decisions concerning how well that legislation conformed to prior statements made outside of the House of Commons (which statements? how far back in time? by whom? -- leave the practicalities out of this for the moment) that have been deemed to be "promises". Let's say also that the Ethics Commissioner could impose sanctions on legislators who have proposed legislation determined to be flawed by the Commissioner in order to prod for changes in the legislation. And let's also say that this one-man unelected pseudo-legislative-branch called the Ethics Commissioner could be set on the track of bad legislation not by an elected member of parliament but by a private citizen, elected by no one, representing only himself when he complains that he doesn't like the proposed bill. Doesn't that sound like something that undermines democracy? Doesn't that sound a process Democracy Watch would be very concerned about?

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:37 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 824 words, total size 5 kb.

Madonna manages to keep in the news, which is quite the accomplishment for a popstar of her age.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 11:17 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 981 words, total size 6 kb.

You'd think that after the David Emerson thing, the Conservatives would have learned.

But no.

Here they are, treating another MP who is not a member of the caucus with respect, offering him a role with responsibility, being inclusive instead of exclusive.

It's that sort of dirty and underhanded political scheming that prompted David Emerson to bolt from his proper place among the Liberals, paragons of political virtue that they are.

This time, it is independent Quebec MP Andre Arthur in the sights:

Rookie Quebec Independent MP Andre Arthur, a former shock radio jock, is not ruling out the possibility of joining the federal Conservatives in this Parliament.

A controversial former radio personality whom the governing Tories put on the Commons Industry, Science and Technology Committee recently, Mr. Arthur said that he has not been approached by anyone from the Conservative Party, either formally or informally, to join their party.

"The only thing that I've been approached with is an extraordinary treatment. They gave an Independent a seat on a major Parliamentary Committee--Industry, Science and Technology and that is something that I have to measure, in terms of respect and seduction," he said.

"I think it was Jay Hill [who said in answering a reporter's question] that do you expect Arthur to vote with you all the time and he answered, 'Not all the time but once in a while would be fun.' It's quite evident that for me, this is a hand that's stretched in my direction, I shook it, I appreciate what they did."

That "hand" hides a sinister motive:

[Chief Government Whip Jay Hill ] added that the unusual step of putting Mr. Arthur on the Commons Industry committee has nothing to do with the possibility of enticing him to join the Conservative caucus. Rather, he said that the Prime Minister wants to empower each and every MP so that he or she could play a productive and constructive role in the Parliament.

It's enough to make my blood boil! How are we to have true electoral reform in this country with all these empowered and respected MPs gumming up the works, not doing as they are told by party leaders and spin doctors. Bev Dejarlais, the NDP MP for Churchill, was severely punished by Jack Layton for voting her conscience and according to the wishes of her constituents. No longer an MP, she now works for the Conservatives. Keep this up, and we'll have MPs from all three opposition parties wondering if they might not be happier working for an organization that values their thoughts, and not just their votes.

Imagine how much trouble the Conservatives will be in if that happens.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:07 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 437 words, total size 3 kb.

1 The sarcasm is delicious! Well said, Steve! I'll bet more than a few opposition MP's can't get their heads around this new trend of real parliamentary democracy. Imagine! The nerve of those Conservatives!

Posted by: Dante at May 24, 2006 11:17 PM (r63g0)

2 Just think no by election. This guy is an independent already, so if he decides to jump he has already fullfilled the village idiots party condition.

Posted by: Pissedoff at May 24, 2006 11:27 PM (MBc0V)

3 The guy is practically a conservative anyway. He will not have contort himself like many other floorcrossers to fit in. Had the Conservatives looked like they stood a chance prior to the last election, he might have even run for them. I think Arthur would make an excellent addition to the Conservative caucus.

Posted by: Steve at May 24, 2006 11:31 PM (aAb0z)

4 What eh? another "fair weather" friend? You're welcome to him. Funny to hear a conservative say floor-crossers like Emerson had to 'contort themselves to fit in.' A far cry from the reasons given after the swearing in ceremony. Best you follow Harper's lead, shut up until you are spoken to, asked for the requisite response, or have your PM-approved notes in front of you. Jaysus, you'll just keep embarassing Harper if you keep on like this!

Posted by: No Worries at May 25, 2006 12:02 AM (nnihx)

5 Did I hear correctly? Is the former NDP rep Bev working for the Conservative Party? If so, under what capacity? I am not sure that she would have beat Tina Keeper, but the NDP did not do itself any favours by tossing her. They are going to have the same reputation as the Democrats on these social issues and ultimately the same challenges.

Posted by: DarrenL at May 25, 2006 02:16 AM (323x7)

6 DarrenL: Bev Dejarlais is working for Greg Thompson, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, M.P., New Brunswick Southwest.

Posted by: DJeffery at May 25, 2006 03:18 AM (gjiFt)

7 DarrenL: Bev Desjarlais is working for Greg Thompson, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, M.P., New Brunswick Southwest.

Posted by: DJeffery at May 25, 2006 03:27 AM (gjiFt)

8 "Meanwhile, Conservative sources told The Hill Times that there have been some informal contacts between a handful of Bloc MPs and Quebec Conservatives about the possibility of crossing the floor as well." Now that would be interesting...

Posted by: Jon at May 25, 2006 06:36 AM (+FQCe)

9 Oh, the horror of it all. Inclusive government. I always thought Mulroney was smart to appoint Stephen Lewis as ambassador to the UN. Got him pretty much out of the country and gave Mulroney a touch of class. Mind you we inflicted Lewis on the rest of the world. enough

Posted by: at May 25, 2006 08:40 AM (ucHAZ)

10 All part of the hidden agenda to destroy Canada by providing good government. It's scary to see Stephen Harper showing leadership and common sense as PM, I long for the days when Paul Martin would flap his arms and tell me what to think and the media would hide all the frightnening realities of the world from me.

Posted by: Virgil at May 25, 2006 09:02 AM (whUXu)

11 Steve, please don't try to pretend that Harper is operating out of principle here. He's not. You know it and I know it. Principle is for politicians in opposition, sadly. Aaron

Posted by: Aaron at May 25, 2006 09:29 AM (/wK5H)

12 I had a real chore trying to swallow this article. With tongue planted so firmly in cheek, it made it very hard to chew.

Posted by: Jan Schaafsma at May 25, 2006 11:13 AM (Joh8X)

13 I am all for bloggers but when you start making a big issue re Arthur crossing the floor without any proof this is giving fuel to libs. Arthur is independent and should he decide to run for a certain party it is his decision. You Mr. Janke are starting to sound like MSM instilling doubts and anger in peoples minds without proof and should more people want to cross over then good for them, so far there is no law against it. (libs got 3 from the Conservative Party) and not much fuss was made about them.

Posted by: Mark DeVille at May 25, 2006 11:35 AM (XWBBP)

14 So Harper wasn't scary in oppososition Aaron? He was principled then? It doesn't matter what Harper does, where, or how. People like you and the media are lurking in the shadows waiting to pounce... NONE of us know much about Harper. The difference is we're willing to sit back and wait and judge him by his actions. Some people are all talk, no action (the Liberals for 13 years), some roll up their sleeves and get to work, governing in our Nation's Capital , in Canada, it can be done, believe it, wait for it.

Posted by: Cheri at May 25, 2006 11:40 AM (RusDc)

15 Andre Arthur appeared on CFRA's Lunch Bunch recently. IMO, his views as presented on certain current issues fit in with the CPC stance and he admitted to this when asked by hosts. However, he did say he hasn't been approached by the Conservatives and wouldn't say whether he would consider crossing over as he was enjoying his current learning curve (my words).

Posted by: MadMacs of Bytown at May 25, 2006 11:58 AM (2oM75)

16 Cheri what Aaron hasn't realised is that the opposite is true. We had 13 years of unpricipled theaving lying from the Liberals, aided and abetted by the village idiots party.

Posted by: Pissedoff at May 25, 2006 12:09 PM (UcyjK)

17 PO'd; how ironic both Paul Martin and B.S. are bench mates in that "principled" opposition.

Posted by: Cheri at May 25, 2006 01:02 PM (RusDc)

18 "So Harper wasn't scary in oppososition Aaron? He was principled then?" Cheri, can you explain this one? Scary? "Cheri what Aaron hasn't realised is that the opposite is true. We had 13 years of unpricipled theaving lying from the Liberals, aided and abetted by the village idiots party." Pissedoff, read a bit more carefully before you open your mouth. I'm not saying the Liberals weren't corrupt after 13 years. In fact I didn't even vote Liberal (or NDP) because I knew the Liberals needed to go. What I'm simply arguing is that power corrupts. Principles don't matter to politicians whose aim is to hold onto power. If the Conservatives had been in power for 13 years, I promise you I'd feel exactly the same way. And no I won't apologize for "hiding in the shadows." Every government needs to be able to answer tough questions. Apparently this fact offends Harper (he muzzles his MPs, wages war with the press) which sounds kind of fascist to me. Even though you may support Harper, you have a duty as a citizen to be critical of your government.

Posted by: at May 28, 2006 07:43 AM (nHTEA)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Ex-president Jimmy Carter seems to live in some sort of parallel universe:

Innocent Palestinian people are being treated like animals, with the presumption that they are guilty of some crime. Because they voted for candidates who are members of Hamas, the United States government has become the driving force behind an apparently effective scheme of depriving the general public of income, access to the outside world and the necessities of life.

Of course, we know that the problem is that providing funding for the Palestinians while Hamas holds the reins of power means vast sums of money are likely to end up in Hamas coffers to be used to by weapons with which to kill Israelis. This is not just a suspicion -- Yasser Arafat enriched himself to the tune of hundreds of millions, maybe more, in the same way. In any case, Hamas has not renounced violence or otherwise indicated a willingness to behave in the manner of a responsible sovereign power, and so the money will not flow.

But we can agree to disagree on what Hamas might or might not do. What we can't disagree on are the facts:

t is almost a miracle that the Palestinians have been able to orchestrate three elections during the past 10 years, all of which have been honest, fair, strongly contested, without violence and with the results accepted by winners and losers. Among the 62 elections that have been monitored by us at the Carter Center, these are among the best in portraying the will of the people.

Among the best elections monitored? The results accepted by the winners and losers? Really?

A Gaza security chief loyal to moderate president Mahmoud Abbas was killed when his car blew up Wednesday, the second attack on security commanders in the volatile area in less than a week.

It was not immediately clear who planted the bomb. The attack came during an increasingly bloody power struggle between the Hamas government and Mr. Abbas.

The security chief killed Wednesday was identified as Nabil Hodhod, head of the elite Preventive Security Service in central Gaza. The security branch has been spearheading the confrontation against the Hamas militia.

In Gaza, Hamas blamed Mr. Abbas' rival Fatah group for the kidnapping and shooting of its militants near the southern town of Khan Younis. Hamas activists said the kidnappers served in the Preventive Security Service.

Armed clashes between Hamas and Fatah intensified last week after the Hamas government deployed its own 3,000-member force of militants to the streets.

The three Hamas militants emerged from morning prayers at a mosque near the town of Khan Younis. A car with masked gunmen pulled up, bundled them into the vehicle and sped off, Hamas officials said.

About 15 minutes later, the three Hamas men were found lying in the street near a gas station. Two had been shot in the legs and the third in the abdomen and leg. Hamas officials said the man with the stomach and leg injuries died at a nearby hospital.

Fatah declined to comment on the incident.

I wonder just how violent things have to be before the observers from the Carter Center decide that these people are not really in an accepting mood, and that maybe these Palestinian elections have not really been all that successful.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 07:36 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 571 words, total size 4 kb.

In one of the biggest scandals to hit our oh-so-untouchable health-care system, Ontario and federal taxpayers lost millions funding a nursing home that was run by serial fraud artists.

The bankruptcy of the Royal Crest Lifecare chain and the horror stories of life in these publicly-funded tortue chambers prompted a forensic audit. I've been told that the audit has been completed. However, it has yet to see the light of day.

Why? Maybe because the health-care bureaucracy in this country is terrified of having their inept performance revealed for all to see.

Update: small dead animals asks the same question -- where is the audit?

Posted by: Steve Janke at 11:55 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 1506 words, total size 10 kb.

A massive opportunity for bloggers in Canada:

The parliamentary press gallery launched its latest salvo Tuesday in an ongoing cold war with the Harper government over media access and procedures for reporting on federal politics.

Prior to the start of a news conference in which Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that Canada would contribute $40 million in humanitarian and military assistance to the war-torn Sudanese region of Darfur, members of the press gallery simultaneously got up and left, moments before the prime minister arrived in the room, in an act of defiance against new news conference rules imposed against the media.

So the old media doesn't want to cover Stephen Harper under these new rules? Fine. Start shooting some press releases and doing online Q&A sessions with us bloggers. Might not be as engaging as video for the evening news, but if it keeps Canadians informed, why not? It gives the government a means of getting its message out, and subjects the government to questions from people with a fresh perspective. A no one thinks bloggers are uniformly left-wing the way the old media is perceived (not entirely fairly, by the way).

Posted by: Steve Janke at 04:44 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 208 words, total size 1 kb.

Ben Stein is an icon in American conservatism. But most people know him from his work in entertainment where his monotone delivery is guaranteed to evoke a laugh.

Interestingly, it's where the two aspects of Stein intersect that gives me the giggles.

Stein is also the spokesman for Clear Eyes, a brand of eye drop to relieve bloodshot eyes. A pciture of Stein appears at the top of the Clear Eyes web site. In a new commercial that has just started airing, Stein is shown wearing a beret and neck scarf while extolling the virtues of the eye drops. Behind him on the wall is a drawing of a bloodshot eye. He turns and throws a bucket of water onto the drawing, and the red lines are washed away.

His getup and the water gag evoke for me the image of Jackson Pollack, also known as Jack the Dripper. Jackson was a famous American artist from the 40s and 50s who is best known for dripping and splashing paint on a canvas and calling it art. Maybe it was art -- I admit to being somewhat art-blind.

What is less well known is that Pollack was a radical and a communist during the 30s.

What is even less well known is his membership in the American Committee for Cultural Freedom, an anti-communist advocacy group that formed in 1950 as a response to the urging of many leftists and pacifists to make peace with Josef Stalin and the Soviet Union. The ACCF was hardly a nest of right-wing Republicans -- politically, their only disagreement with the pro-Stalin group was whether radicalism in art and politics could thrive in a bourgeois democracy, or whether that freedom required embracing communism, specifically Stalin's. In 1967, eleven years after Pollack's death in a drunk-driving accident, it was revealed that the CIA had covertly provided much of the funding for the organization (as well as other non-communist leftist groups), much to the embarrassment of both the CIA (embarrassed that the secret had gotten out) and the artists (embarrassed by their association with the CIA, even it was unintended).

I'm certain Stein knows all this, being one of the smartest guys around. So I wonder if he is having a bit of fun with the radical artistes of today, aping the style and manners of one of the founders of the art-doesn't-require-skill school, amused that radical Pollack is yet again being used by conservatives. Not for politics, but by corporate interests to schlep eye drops.

I'm sure the commercial was developed by an advertising agency, but I'd like to think Stein had a hand in it. If so, maybe Stein is saying something about the long-term influence of people like Pollack and their radical politics and their avant-garde tastes. That is, not much influence at all, as their innate silliness dooms them to become subjects of parody. I'd love to ask him one day.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:14 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 495 words, total size 3 kb.

Let me start off by admitting I have not read The Da Vinci Code, and I probably won't anytime soon. I have less intention of going to see the movie.

I have a strange feeling I've seen it already.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 01:11 PM | Comments (51) | Add Comment
Post contains 941 words, total size 7 kb.

1 Steve The DaVinci Code is fiction. It never has nor will it ever be sold as non-fiction. It doesn't pass the smell test as anything but a good mystery thriller in my mind. It is fun to speculate about Mary Magdelane's relationship with Jesus, or anyone else for that matter. But, alas, all it can ever be is speculation. Unless..deep in the Vatican library there is a scroll...

Posted by: steve d. at May 21, 2006 02:20 PM (sw5R/)

2 But of course, DVC is being sold as non-fiction, or at least, apologetically non-fiction (to readers: we have to call this non-fiction, although it is entirely true because we are afraid that angry Catholics will visit our house in Connecticut to protest and tread on our pansies). A couple of years ago (I think when the book came out) there were a couple of CNN docs, one of which promoted alternative stories for Christ the other emphasizing the importance of Magdelene. Their intepretation of Mary was as a prostitute, an adultress, who was the symbol of the forgiveness of Jesus. Of course, this meant that Mary of Magdelene would have been also the "cast the first stone" Mary which she was not. People love inventing their own versions of herstory.

Posted by: Brian Lemon at May 21, 2006 02:56 PM (PjbIr)

3 Simon Templar wasn't ...real? Ohmygawd!

Posted by: Hank at May 21, 2006 03:46 PM (MYChe)

4 Amazing as it sounds, and as much as I am shocked by it,...I agree with Steve_D. Other people have taken Dan Brown's work as non-fiction. Brown himself has never made any claims to that affect. Denouncers abound, yet on the first page of the book Brown has a list of facts. Everything else is FICTION. These religious dolts blasting The Da Vinci Code as lies should remember that. But of course, you wouldn't know that unless you've read the book. Which most of them are loathe to do because it questions their faith.

Posted by: Regis at May 21, 2006 06:47 PM (PDlfz)

5 It sounds like you're taking it a bit too seriously. It's a piece of fiction, nothing more. It's Christians who are turning it into a bigger deal than it should be. It's almost like they're afraid. I'm not saying the story is true: elements of it are plausible, but other parts are just fantasy. The Vatican used to be a pretty violent organization, I could see them killing to keep a secret, hundreds of years ago. Over 2,000 years details can be muddied, so it's possible the Christ was married. I just laugh at all the Christians - and I am one - who are going absolutely crazy over a book turned into a movie. Get over it people. The world isn't going to collapse because someone's questioning Jesus.

Posted by: sean at May 21, 2006 07:06 PM (z8naz)

6 IT IS ENTERTAINMENT...thats it. However, if that was a movie about another monotheist religon and its founder then there would be blood in the streets. Go see the movie, or dont your choice, it is a free society and thats how it should remain. One where movies and books and cartoons are able to riff on religous stories and symbols. The fact that they, the symbols and stories, are sacred is what makes it an interesting story.... Article in the Star today about the failure of the mullahocracy in Iran, there is hope yet, while we have Haroon Siddiqui taking the side of those who would banish Ms Ali out of the Netherlands because she dared raise criticisms of islamic culture. What a day of contradictions.

Posted by: Stephen at May 21, 2006 07:53 PM (upnxu)

7 My God! I grew up with Leslie Charteris and I'm seventy three. Its good to hear from another fan. Answer one question, what was the full name of the Saints occasional side kick Hoppy.

Posted by: ronrob at May 21, 2006 08:34 PM (14sIs)

8 I just finished re-reading the DiVinci Code before going to see the movie to see how the movie captures or not the book. It has been several years since I had read the book, and had forgotten what a GREAT fast paced thriller it is. Since all of the hubbub and arguments about the accuracy of a work of fiction. Go figure. Every time another debunking show comes on TV, Dan Brown sells many more books and loads the Brinks Truck up with loot to take off to the bank. I have a sneaking suspicion that Dan Brown is behind all the criticism of the DiVinci Code. It's a great scam. If you can read the book and not recognize it as fiction, I feel sorry for you.

Posted by: at May 21, 2006 08:38 PM (7LZ2O)

9 I just finished re-reading the DiVinci Code before going to see the movie to see how the movie captures or not the book. It has been several years since I had read the book, and had forgotten what a GREAT fast paced thriller it is. Since all of the hubbub and arguments about the accuracy of a work of fiction. Go figure. Every time another debunking show comes on TV, Dan Brown sells many more books and loads the Brinks Truck up with loot to take off to the bank. I have a sneaking suspicion that Dan Brown is behind all the criticism of the DiVinci Code. It's a great scam. If you can read the book and not recognize it as fiction, I feel sorry for you.

Posted by: the Dragon at May 21, 2006 08:38 PM (7LZ2O)

10 To those who try to blame the controversy over TDaVC on Christians, I'd like to point out that that is only partly correct. The backlash from Christian groups is because so many people reading the book are forgetting that it's fiction. Even when I read the book, probably about 3-4 years ago, I remember it being an issue and wondering how or why any intelligent person would read a novel and take it for fact. Apparently, things haven't gotten any better. I do agree, though, that some of the Christian reactions are way overboard and probably backfiring. All that free publicity has probably sold more books than anything else.

Posted by: kunoichi at May 21, 2006 08:55 PM (RtGr9)

11 Ah yes, but what was the nickname "Peter" really standing for? A much looser translation of such, as perhaps from the Cotton Patch translation of various parts of the New Testament, renders "Peter" as "Rocky". That kinda makes a wee bit more sense with the line about "...on this rock...". That shows a more internal consistency than having to drag in Gnostic silliness. The movie was long on exposition and got some basic history wrong. As a starting point for evangelization such as in a movie theater lobby it is a good thing. For artistic value...I simply liked the reminder of all the sights in Paris that I saw when I last visited in 1998. Not a great movie for a librarian like me to go see. I eagerly await instead the 24 movie to be set in England. That should be neat.

Posted by: S.M.K. at May 21, 2006 09:35 PM (qlvTU)

12 Dan Brown wants it both ways. On one hand it claims it is a work of fiction but on the first few pages it mentions the Priory and says it is a real organization (which is isn't, actually). You can't say "this is fiction...but there's a lot of truth in it" As for being a well written book, I'd disagree. There were so many mentions of the shock the leading lady experienced when she saw her (grand?)father that by the time Brown got around to finally describing what she saw, I didn't care. She was shocked. She was shocked what she saw in the basement. She was shocked what she saw in the basement with the hooded figures. She was shocked what she saw in the basement with the hooded figures and the ancient rites. She was shocked what she saw in the basement with the hooded figures and the ancient rites and her (grand?)father right in the middle of of the ritual She was shocked....blah, blah, blah. As for character development, there was none. So why was it so immensely popular. Probably for the same reason that American Idol is so immensely popular.

Posted by: Darren at May 21, 2006 10:41 PM (E8rOy)

13 ronrob, that would be "Hoppy Uniatz" the dimwitted but reliable thug who drank Vat69 like it was lemonade.

Posted by: Mac at May 22, 2006 12:55 AM (TaDbz)

14 Dan Brown is a poor writer who relies on "hollywood imagery" to sell his books. I have yet to be the least bit impressed with his crappy writing.(I have read a lot, thanks to my mother in lawe who loves him ')

Posted by: Daryl H at May 22, 2006 03:43 AM (kAsD7)

15 It took a bit of work to get through this book. It is just bad writing with "facts" that are not facts. The early bishops tromped on the three (Mary, Martha and Johanna), no doubt about that. Mary had a fight with Peter & Paul on one side and a few of the other Apostles on Mary's side: The fight was over her right to be a teacher/leader. That we can say with a fair bit of assurance. We can say with assurance that Mary M. was more than just another camp follower: She stood as an teacher/witness/Apostle in her own right. That's as far as we can go. Going beyond the above is daft. Sadly, there are many who want to go far beyond "Mary got shafted by the early bishop's sexism." I worry about people's current demand for a sacred feminine. People refuse, in the very same breath, to include the shadow side of the feminine; due to this we find ourselves in a bad situation. We cannot fully include the sacred feminine without including the shadow feminine for to do so creates a lie and a dangerous one too. Sadly, this dangerous lie IS --in every way is-- our society as it currently exists. We live in a culture where the feminine is upheld as the standard of good. We also live in a society where the shadow side of the feminine causes real harm, with few holding up that self same shadow for all to see. This creates real and measurable harm to all people. In all ways Christianity has shown both the sacred and shadow masculine. We should have added the sacred and shadow feminine many centuries ago; we did not. This has lead to today's deeply problematic society. Brown's book shows the size and scope of our problem with the feminine; that is a big part of the book's attraction. DaVinci holds the same "sacred feminine without shadow feminine" which is the heart problem of western culture. For Canada to be a better place we must reject the heart of the DaVinci Code: We must fully include both the sacred female and the shadow female. For only by doing so may we hope to move forward as a gread land.

Posted by: jw at May 22, 2006 04:20 AM (OfyVr)

16 JW, Nice post. The way these yin yang/male female/duality things work is that there is duality within duality. Maleness has good and bad things and so does femaleness (sacred and shadow feminine) At the end of the day its all about balance. Of course for the advocates on any side, when you scratch beneath the surface its all about power. There are problems that manifest themselves today, the drop in school performance of males, the intolerance of natural "male behaviour" in boys in school. I have a son and a duaghter and there has been a swing against boys by some teachers, sad to see the effect it has on a 4 year old boy who knows no better. Fortunately there has been a teacher change and his love of school has shot up. Anyway, nice post JW

Posted by: Stephen at May 22, 2006 05:57 AM (upnxu)

17 http://www.theinfozone.net is featuring AGWN as one of our featured bloggers (May 22) in a report on the blogsphere. http://www.theinfozone.net/blogsphere.html covers past reports in this new feature. TIZ

Posted by: TIZReporter at May 22, 2006 06:43 AM (Ht25X)

18 Regis: The problem is that Brown's so-called facts on his first page are also partly fictional. Brown spins a good tale, and it is fiction, but it is written in such a way as to purport that it's just the story that's fictional-- all the historical details are expected to be correct. And that's where I have a problem with it. Yes, it's fiction. But it claims to be *historical* fiction--Brown has claimed this--and that, it is patently not.

Posted by: Alex at May 22, 2006 09:00 AM (sVRBv)

19 I read it and enjoyed it. I will probably see the movie, though fear disappointment because almost always the book is better. One thing that bothers me, though, is when someone criticizes without actually reading it. Read it and criticize, but don't criticize because of what others have said.

Posted by: morison at May 22, 2006 09:39 AM (DRtQx)

20 Brown has claimed this Reference please. Because everytime I've ever seen Brown interviewed he has emphasized in the strongest words possible that it is a novel, and that anyone who takes it as more than such is off base. Get over it. It is a novel.

Posted by: tim at May 22, 2006 10:42 AM (fnZDj)

21 "Reference please. Because everytime I've ever seen Brown interviewed he has emphasized in the strongest words possible that it is a novel, and that anyone who takes it as more than such is off base." From Dan Brown's official website: "While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist (for example, Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.). These real elements are interpreted and debated by fictional characters. While it is my belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters may have merit, each individual reader must explore these characters' viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations. My hope in writing this novel was that the story would serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history." That sort of thing gets repeated over and over. It's fiction, he says, so don't blame me for being offended, but everything I wrote about is historical and should be discussed as facts and not as fiction. Can't have it both ways. I've also seen an interview, and in it he clearly states that he researched such things as the Priory of Sion and is convinced that the documentation is authentic. He talks like a historian, but insists he's just a fiction writer when confronted by real historians.

Posted by: Steve Janke at May 22, 2006 11:57 AM (DUCPj)

22 "It's fiction, he says, so don't blame me for being offended, but everything I wrote about is historical and should be discussed as facts and not as fiction. Can't have it both ways." I don't see how that is having it both ways. Historical fiction is nothing new: think of all the romance novels set in the American Civil War. There is a difference between writing nonfiction and writing fiction that incorporates actual events. Frankly I find the idea that Jesus had sex with Mary Magdalene less far-fetched than, say, the idea that Jesus rose from the dead. The organizers of religion always pick and choose which myths and legends become part of the dogma and which are left out, and Christianity is no different in that respect.

Posted by: Ade at May 22, 2006 02:06 PM (4p91Z)

23 Steve, First, you write as if the Bible and Vatican somehow have revealed the objective truth to us, not just theological truth, but also historical truth. This is of course not correct. Your belief in the Bible, Christ etc is based on faith, not on facts. (The "the Bible is the truth because the Bible says it is the truth" argument doesn't really cut it.) Second, if you consider it obvious (like I do) that it is a fundamental right to publish the so called Muhammed cartoons, then it is also obvious that it is Browns fundamental right to publish a novel. What's the problem? In fact, even if Brown claimed that his book is indeed non-fiction (e.g. a historical research paper), shouldn't you defend his right to publish it (albeit argue the facts, as necessary)? Why the hysteria? Please, focus on something important, such as our tax & spend Conservative government, or the corrupt Liberal party.

Posted by: Johan i Kanada at May 22, 2006 09:06 PM (oXLd2)

24 Funnily enough, I too recall that Saint novel, but as it turns out, it *wasn't* written by Charteris. It's called *The Saint and the Templar Treasure*, and it's credited to Graham Weaver and Donne Averell. http://www.saint.org/books.htm

Posted by: PhantomObserver at May 22, 2006 09:50 PM (G+EbY)

25 Mac Thanks a lot, as I recall Hoppy could spit a BB with almost deadly force

Posted by: ronrob at May 22, 2006 10:09 PM (14sIs)

26 "a movie that has opened to resoundingly bad reviews" And did $74 million at the box office the first weekend.

Posted by: dmorris at May 22, 2006 10:40 PM (0/8vq)

27 Yeah. Right. Great bit of fiction for the Mormons to spread their heresy with. As for Peter being the "rock" Jesus spoke of, try reading it in the Bible. The Rock is Jesus Himself.

Posted by: at May 22, 2006 11:08 PM (Rww+E)

28 Why am I not surprised that at least one commenter brought up the Mohammad cartoons and free speech crap? Um, ok. No one said that Dan Brown couldn't or shouldn't publish DVC, or that it shouldn't be made into a movie. We just think it's crap. And so we say so. That's a little bit different than saying he should have his head cut off or starting riots. Please try to focus and stay on topic, Johan i Kanada. Mixing apples and oranges, dude.

Posted by: Heather Cook at May 22, 2006 11:26 PM (4SQNC)

29 You "just think it's crap. And so we say so." Well, just a few days ago an editorial in my usually reasonable newspaper (NP) compared DVC to hate speech (thus illegal)... So what is Steve's point then? Just that the DVC stuff is crap, nothing else? In that case, can he give me advice on some other literary works as well? Has he become a literary critic? Btw, and I would really like to know, what does Steve (and other DVC critics) think about Eco's Name of the Rose?

Posted by: Johan i Kanada at May 23, 2006 12:15 AM (oXLd2)

30 Funnily enough, I too recall that Saint novel, but as it turns out, it *wasn't* written by Charteris. It's called *The Saint and the Templar Treasure*, and it's credited to Graham Weaver and Donne Averell. Thanks! That's why I couldn't find it -- I was focusing on lists of Charteris' works. One less thing to bother me.

Posted by: Steve Janke at May 23, 2006 08:36 AM (4IJNq)

31 Johan in K, "First, you write as if the Bible and Vatican somehow have revealed the objective truth to us, not just theological truth, but also historical truth. This is of course not correct. Your belief in the Bible, Christ etc is based on faith, not on facts. (The "the Bible is the truth because the Bible says it is the truth" argument doesn't really cut it.)" Biblical exegesis is a two-thousand-year-old field of study with a great deal more authenticity, research, and double-checking of facts going for it than the dashed-off pseudohistory of Brown's sources. Many of the letters of Paul, just as an example, have been independently verified and collectively agreed, by scholars both Christian and non-Christian, to be written by the actual Paul, the real Jewish scholar who can be historically proven to have travelled the ancient world preaching -- some of them have been conclusively dated from less than two decades after Christ's death. You might be interested in the website www.earlychristianwritings.com for a good smorgasbord introduction to the earliest Christian documents, their historicity, and the studies made of them. One thing they clearly demonstrate is that virtually without exception, every official New Testament element not only predates the fragmentary documents and historical vaguenesses used as the basis of the theories of Baigent, Picknell, Pagels, et al, but explicitly contradict them in many instances. The Bible's historical authenticity rests on a great deal more study than its own say-so. Another great book for this is Thomas Cahill's Desire of the Everlasting Hills, which is a brilliant introduction to the historical study of Jesus of Nazareth. "Second, if you consider it obvious (like I do) that it is a fundamental right to publish the so called Muhammed cartoons, then it is also obvious that it is Browns fundamental right to publish a novel. What's the problem?" No problem at all, as far as publishing a "novel" goes. It's Brown's claim (which he has made in numerous places; Steve cited one above, and you can Google any interview with Brown from 2005 or before for others) that the novel's historical thesis is fundamentally accurate, or at least that there is enough verifiable historical evidence for it that it should serve as just cause for seriously questioning not only the accepted record, but the entire basis of the theology and message of the Catholic Church (and thereby virtually every single sect of Christianity in any form). There's a term for the deliberate publication of verifiable falsehoods in an effort to damage the character, standing or status of a person or organization: it's called "libel". Let me ask you this: How would you react to a pulp thriller novel based on the presumption that a vast religious conspiracy has effectively controlled Western civilization for 2,000 years, and whose author claimed both implicitly and explicitly that the "history" revealed in the book was true... if the conspiracy in question was that outlined in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Would you really feel utterly untroubled saying to outraged Jewish friends or colleagues, "What's the big deal? It's just a novel, get over it -- he's got the right to publish what he wants"?

Posted by: Stephen J. at May 23, 2006 09:32 AM (+7vgB)

32 I guess an organization living in fear of having a secret scroll discovered and keeping it hidden for centuries makes a more exciting read for a fiction novel than having the original finder just destroy the scroll. Which is what I would do with a secret. Obviously if I wrote the book it would have been really short. Pretty dumb, even for fictional characters.

Posted by: Reader in Alberta at May 23, 2006 11:21 AM (2IC3P)

33 Small point, Johan in K: "First, you write as if the Bible and Vatican somehow have revealed the objective truth to us, not just theological truth, but also historical truth. This is of course not correct. Your belief in the Bible, Christ etc is based on faith, not on facts. (The "the Bible is the truth because the Bible says it is the truth" argument doesn't really cut it.)" There are mounds of historical truth in the Bible, particularly the New Testament. Catholics (the "Vatican") has never claimed that the Bible claims itself as the truth - that's a Protestant formulation - Catholics believe in the Bible because those who wrote it were willing to die for the truths contained in it. The witness of the martyrs is probably the most foolish thing in the Christian world if what they wrote is false. As such, my faith in the Christ of the Bible has more to do with factual events/witness than with the interpretation itself. Why would people peacefully allow themselves to be put to death for their beliefs if they knew they had falsified them in the first place? BTW, I have read the DVC, and may see the movie (though not until it's a rental, and Brown gets a lot less of my $$ from the process). It was an interesting read - as a teacher in a Catholic school, I figured it worthwhile to know something about it to answer my students. "Serious" questions arising from the book are easily answered to anyone not steeped in conspiracy theories. One question I have: why did Brown not include a single respected Christian source (of which there are many; both current, and historical - in response to Gnosticism, which DVC most assuredly is the latest incarnation of) throughout his 'research'?

Posted by: Shane O. at May 23, 2006 12:45 PM (IA1Tg)

34 ...hey did Indiana Jones find the Holy Grail yet? Oh wait, that was a British exploratory expedition wasn't it? ...is it african or european swallow?

Posted by: tomax7 at May 23, 2006 12:49 PM (jHhd0)

35 Lighten up everyone. It was a movie! made in Holywood! It is fiction! If it wasn't a movie made by Hollywood, it would be . ......a documentary on PBS

Posted by: ian at May 23, 2006 01:03 PM (KqGpk)

36 Stephen J: "There's a term for the deliberate publication of verifiable falsehoods in an effort to damage the character, standing or status of a person or organization: it's called "libel"." Perhaps, but: - First, Christianity is not based on verifiable truths. (In fact, it is a verifiable falsehood that people can walk on water or virgins become pregnant.) - Second this is a novel, not a historical thesis. - Third, even if it were a historical thesis, it cannot be libel to put in doubt a particular religion (or version thereof). Because, if if it were, should then all Protestants be sued for libel by the Pope? Should all Muslims be sued for libel by Christianity? Of course not. - Fourth, isn't it my inalienable right to criticize ("damage the status") of any religion, any political party, any philosophy, even if I'm factually wrong? In conclusion, I don't think libel comes into play in this case.

Posted by: Johan i Kanada at May 23, 2006 01:29 PM (oXLd2)

37 None of us was around during the first century, so we are free to believe whatever we like about it. But if you decide to ignore the evidence that survives as to what did happen, then you're being irrational. Jesus is one of the best documented figures of the first century. To deny that he existed is simply irrational. Every bit as irrational as holocaust denial, and for the same reason. The DVC is a wretchedly bad book. No matter how popular it got, it wouldn't be of any interest, except for one thing: it sells to people who hate their Christian neighbours, and want to be believe something, anything, no matter how obviously false and dishonest, in order to rationalise that insane hatred. That's scary.

Posted by: ebt at May 23, 2006 01:31 PM (7y2db)

38 Shane O: "Why would people peacefully allow themselves to be put to death for their beliefs if they knew they had falsified them in the first place?" Ask a jihadist. (Although of course neither martyrs nor jihadists believe they are factually wrong, as they are/were both carried by their faith.) Btw (and I truly would like to understand), why is Gnosticism such a bad thing? From a historical & factual perspective, is Gnosticism really less valid than Christianity?

Posted by: Johan i Kanada at May 23, 2006 01:35 PM (oXLd2)

39 I'd agree with many posters. The DVC is a badly written book. It's made up a a series of short scenes or events, each about two pages long. But, nothing happens. The writing is so bad that it took a great deal of effort to refrain from throwing it in the trash (I finally did; I couldn't handle it anymore). There's no plot line other than Find the Grail and mutter about decoding, no decent conversations or debates, no characters or character development. A lot of statements of shock and despair. Simplistic plot, simplistic characters. Just compare with any Harry Potter for a comparable scenario of 'searching for the whatever', be it philosopher's stone or secret or etc. Now, the Potter books are extremely well-written, but this Dan Brown book is abysmal. Compare it with Eco's Name of the Rose. Compare it with any decent mystery writer. Brown is a terrible writer. And now, a wealthy terrible writer.

Posted by: ET at May 23, 2006 02:12 PM (rBXcG)

40 ebt: "it sells to people who hate their Christian neighbours, and want to be believe something, anything, no matter how obviously false and dishonest, in order to rationalise that insane hatred. That's scary" How many readers of DVC do you know (or know of) who hate their Christian neighbors? Who are these people? (Btw, very few denies that Jesus existed. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I know of anyone. But of course there are many who doubts Jesus' divinity etc, but that's another story.)

Posted by: Johan i Kanada at May 23, 2006 02:30 PM (oXLd2)

41 ET: Regarding Eco, if I'm not mistaken, 'Name of the Rose' was quite critical to the Catholic church (too). I'm curious, was there a similar debate then?

Posted by: Johan i Kanada at May 23, 2006 02:35 PM (oXLd2)

42 Steve Janke you need to read all the four gospels and compare them. I guarantee you there are serious discrepancies. There are some serious disagreements between who saw Jesus first, the angel or angels at the tomb, the visitations etc. Evidence A: If all the disciples fled when Christ was arrested, who wrote the detail discriptions of what tok place. Evidence B: According one of the books, the disciples fell asleep in the garden so witnessed the word of Jesus' prayer? Evidence C: In the temptation of Christ, who was the witness to the words exchanged between Jesus and the Devil? Just like Dan Brown, it seem those books are also figments of their author's imagination..

Posted by: Citizen of the Great White North at May 23, 2006 03:02 PM (X6p7A)

43 Steve j: I agree with you, other than Matthew 16:18. The 'rock' that Jesus referred to is in verse 17 - the revelation that Jesus is the Son of God. Johan, Comparing jihadists to early Christian martyrs is apples to oranges. Jihadists owe more to their spiritual ancestors - the Assassins. Besides, Christian martyrs weren't suicidal murderers, being offered 72 black eyed virgins as reward - rather, they were murdered for holding to their faith. To them (and to many Christian missionaries since then) preaching the revelation of Christ is the divine mission, even if it means giving up your life.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at May 23, 2006 03:12 PM (MkblT)

44 Citizen, Rather than disproving the NT, these differences support it. On minor observations, people have their own POV (just ask any detective). On all major Biblical issues, the writers completely agree. Otherwise, over the course of 2000 years, especially during the 'dark' ages - don't you think somebody would have homogenized the whole thing through editing? Conspiracies abound. Think about it.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at May 23, 2006 03:20 PM (MkblT)

45 It is troubling that many who have not read the book or seen the movie and have no intention doing so are quick to pass judgement on the author and his work. The movie is good, not great, but it is good. The Divinci Code is a good adventure yarn. It is not high art or masterful writing. Neither is Tom Clancy, but who can put down "The Hunt for Red October"? It is historic fiction just like the Bible. A made up story loosely based on historic places and events. If Dan Brown's work does nothing more than make people aware of the tenuos historic foundation of Christianity then it will have been a success not only as an entertaining movie and book, but as an agent for stimulating thought. Thinking is one thing our society needs to do more of.

Posted by: Cardstonkid at May 23, 2006 03:28 PM (kvZ4g)

46 Christians, especially Catholics, have every right to be upset with Dan Brown's 'fact-based' fiction. Here's why.

Posted by: Linda at May 23, 2006 07:51 PM (oCPrU)

47 As they had every right to be upset by Luther's 95 theses. Watch out, here they come again...

Posted by: Johan i Kanada at May 23, 2006 08:37 PM (oXLd2)

48 Sigh. "Who's afraid of the big bad Catholics." You just proved the point of the post I linked to, Johan.

Posted by: Linda at May 24, 2006 02:45 PM (oCPrU)

49 Johan, to your questions, "why is Gnosticism such a bad thing? From a historical & factual perspective, is Gnosticism really less valid than Christianity?" The simple answer is that yes, Gnosticism is less valid, historically and factually, than Christianity. First of all, G-ism ignores (at least downplays) the accounts of Christ's life that were written by the people who knew Christ (one of the criteria for acceptance of the 4 Gospels is that they were either written by an Apostle, or by someone who lived in the company of an Apostle - basically first-hand accounts). Instead, they wrote their own accounts many years later. Simply in the interests of reporting accurately, this makes the Gnostic accounts suspect. (As an aside - the Gnostic gospels, if it can be believed, are actually worse writing than DVC; the Jesus they contain is plastic). The Christian reaction against Gnosticism is predicated on the confusion that unreliable accounts sow among the faithful. The Jesus of the Gnostic 'gospels' is not the Jesus the early martyrs died for. As for the difference between jihadists and martyrs: I see a profound difference between seeking death, including the death of 'infidels' as a path to glory; and accepting a not-sought-for death by refusing to renounce what you believe to be true.

Posted by: Shane O. at May 24, 2006 09:15 PM (N6HS/)

50 Johan, to your questions, "why is Gnosticism such a bad thing? From a historical & factual perspective, is Gnosticism really less valid than Christianity?" The simple answer is that yes, Gnosticism is less valid, historically and factually, than Christianity. First of all, G-ism ignores (at least downplays) the accounts of Christ's life that were written by the people who knew Christ (one of the criteria for acceptance of the 4 Gospels is that they were either written by an Apostle, or by someone who lived in the company of an Apostle - basically first-hand accounts). Instead, they wrote their own accounts many years later. Simply in the interests of reporting accurately, this makes the Gnostic accounts suspect. (As an aside - the Gnostic gospels, if it can be believed, are actually worse writing than DVC; the Jesus they contain is plastic compared to the 4 accepted gospels). The Christian reaction against Gnosticism is predicated on the confusion that unreliable accounts sow among the faithful. The Jesus of the Gnostic 'gospels' is not the Jesus the early martyrs died for. As for the difference between jihadists and martyrs: I see a profound difference between seeking death, including the death of 'infidels' as a path to glory; and accepting a not-sought-for death by refusing to renounce what you believe to be true.

Posted by: Shane O. at May 24, 2006 09:15 PM (N6HS/)

51 Oops - SJ. I don't mind if you'd like to delete this post and the first of my previous double-post.

Posted by: Shane O. at May 24, 2006 09:21 PM (N6HS/)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

This piece appears in the May 22 print edition of the Western Standard.

There are plenty of rules when it comes to donating to Canadian election campaigns. But what about un-elections? The "Campaign to De-Elect David Emerson" -- a supposedly local effort to force the Vancouver-Kingsway MP to run in a byelection after defecting from the Liberals to the Tories -- has been soliciting donations for lawn signs, buttons and who knows what else. Actually, that no one knows how donations are being spent is just one reason voters might be concerned.

Elections Canada's finance rules are supposed to stop special interest groups from using big spending to promote narrow agendas, by limiting donation sizes and making contributions publicly known -- measures that don't apply to "de-elections." No one knows, in this case, which groups are using money to influence the democratic process, or how.

Industry Minister Emerson has called the agitators "partisan zealots" -- as opposed to any real grassroots movement in the riding. He may be right. When one group hired a plane to fly over Parliament Hill on opening day, trailing a banner reading, "Emerson: Call home!," it published the names of the 250 people who subsidized the stunt (though not their donations). Turns out, there were many special interests involved -- from unionists to anti-war activists to anarchists -- loads of whom don't even live in Emerson's riding. Shouldn't Vancouver-Kingsway residents know which groups are trying to influence their riding's politics -- even in a de-election? Until Elections Canada says so, the best we can do is offer a glimpse of some of the folks who paid for the airplane prank, and the opportunity to bring their own politics to bear on the voters of Vancouver-Kingsway.

- STEVE JANKE

Posted by: Steve Janke at 03:30 PM | Comments (47) | Add Comment
Post contains 465 words, total size 4 kb.

1 . . . that no one knows how donations are being spent is just one reason voters might be concerned. Why? The only people that should be concerned are the people doing the donating, and why is it our responsibility to tell them how to spend their own money? Elections Canada's finance rules are supposed to stop special interest groups from using big spending to promote narrow agendas, by limiting donation sizes and making contributions publicly known -- measures that don't apply to "de-elections." These are the same spending rules that you have railed against in the past, right? Show a little backbone and either stand up for the principle that there shouldn't be rules about spending limits, or admit your own partisanship. Shouldn't Vancouver-Kingsway residents know which groups are trying to influence their riding's politics -- even in a de-election? Wow! Nanny-statism at its worst. Don't trust the voters to be able to make up their own minds -- the special interest groups are making them up for them, right? Come on, Angry. If people want to spend their money on a movement to recall Emerson, what is it our business? Why are you defending anti-democratic, nanny-statist spending controls and behaviour modification rules? And why would you use Emerson as the hill to die on -- the guy was elected by virtue of the party he belonged to, and then switched. Both he, and you, should show a little bit more respect for both the democratic process and for voters.

Posted by: bob at May 18, 2006 04:26 PM (4EUc/)

2 True Investigative Journalism By Angry When moonbats like these, or when the Polaris Institute publishes it pap, bloggers like Angry do the goog and find out how biased they are, and quiets the noise.

Posted by: Brian Lemon at May 18, 2006 04:44 PM (PjbIr)

3 "If people want to spend their money on a movement to recall Emerson, what is it our business?" You are absooutely right, bob. Of course, the same thing applies to general elections and byelections, too, doesn't it?

Posted by: DCardno at May 18, 2006 04:54 PM (qN4VR)

4 It looks like a lot of the people named are on the left...just like 80% of the voters in Vancouver-Kingsway. Now I wonder what would get them all riled up?

Posted by: steve d. at May 18, 2006 04:55 PM (sw5R/)

5 You are absooutely right, bob. Of course, the same thing applies to general elections and byelections, too, doesn't it? You bet it does. But apparently some folks (Angry?) only want to argue against it when it is politically expedient.

Posted by: bob at May 18, 2006 05:42 PM (4EUc/)

6 I also find it amazing that he is characterizing these as "hidden enemies" and that Brian is calling Angry's post "True Investigative Journalism". As Angry points out, it was the guys who hired the airplane that, themselves, published the donor list. This is hidden? This took investigation to uncover? Puh-leeze.

Posted by: bob at May 18, 2006 05:47 PM (4EUc/)

7 bob has a point, Steve.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 18, 2006 05:48 PM (Rn5Ph)

8 "But apparently some folks (Angry?) only want to argue against it when it is politically expedient" bob, Could it be that, even if one disagrees with a particular legislation, we can all agree that there should be a level playing field? Despite what anyone thinks or wants, the liberals put the rules in place regarding election spending. The looney left are circumventing their own laws by acting as a coalition. steve d, You may be right about the politics of the majority of V-K constituents (but I sincerely doubt it. I'd be interested in seeing where you get your number from). There may or may not be a byelection in that riding. There will be a federal election sooner or later. Those 80% of which you speak can make their decision whether or not they want representation in the new Conservative government, at that time.

Posted by: Rob R at May 18, 2006 05:54 PM (y9Fs6)

9 Well David Emmerson was right about one thing -- they were partisan zealots. They can spend their money wherever they feel best. Actually I couldn't care less who funded that particular stunt, however this horse is dead. I didn't like it when Scott Brison and Belinda did it, and I don't like it when Emmerson did it. However, it is not against the rules. It is the rules that have to change. I would suggest you send letters to your MP and get them to do something about it on the hill. Otherwise I guarantee it will happen again. I have sent at least 5 emails to my conservative MP over the last 2 months. Hopefully if it comes to a vote, he will vote the right way. Heck, put the bug in happy Jack's ear -- look how fast he got a debate and vote on troop deployment in Afghanistan!

Posted by: morison at May 18, 2006 06:22 PM (DRtQx)

10 Like many people who are against the Election Canada spending rules, I -- and I imagine Steve is included in this -- simply point out that there is a dual standard being applied. Either Elections Canada should step in and apply the law to these people, or Elections Canada should acknowledge that the law is bunk. Steve is not the hypocrite in this situation. Steve is only pointing out Elections Canada's hypocrisy via the Western Standard article. I would rather that Elections Canada's rules regarding what I do with my money to be overturned so that I could do whatever I want with my donations. But, if they aren't going to let me do whatever I want, they better be willing to stand up and do the same when other people step on the rules. Is is hypocritical to point out a double standard? Or is that simply a person asking for fair treatment? You know the answer Bob and Dawg... don't be petty and obnoxious.

Posted by: Surecure at May 18, 2006 08:16 PM (5xF7M)

11 "But apparently some folks (Angry?) only want to argue against it when it is politically expedient." Yes - but it's the other folks who get to call in the RCMP and throw you in the slammer. If you think that the 'de-elect Emerson' campaign is entitled to unlimited funding, then I expect to see you making the same argument for all political campaigns - not just when it is politically expedient for you

Posted by: Deaner at May 18, 2006 10:28 PM (kc0eB)

12 I'm sorry Steve, let me clarify. You're saying that these people should not be allowed to express their opposition to a politician? Is that your position? You may disagree with what they're saying, but please defend their right to say it. Whoever they are. Communists, Liberals, Palistinians, Greens, Executives, and anti-Olympians all enjoy the same liberties as you and I.

Posted by: Bowie at May 18, 2006 10:30 PM (YbpZQ)

13 Deaner, I did already make that argument, in my response to Dcardno's question. I don't want spending limits anywhere. And neither does Steve (is my guess) -- I just wish he'd apply his own standard all the time. Surecure. The point of Steve's article was not to point out that hypocricy -- that would have been a good article though. Alas, at no point does he complain about election spending limits during elections. Instead, he complains that such limits are not being applied outside elections, and that this is somehow hurting both Emerson and the voters. Read his last two sentences. Does this sound like someone who doesn't want limits, or someone who wants them expanded? It sure sounds like the latter to me.

Posted by: bob at May 18, 2006 10:46 PM (fnZDj)

14 Bob - while you are certainly right about the democratic process and free speech etc. etc. - Angry is simply bringing forward the facts that many of these "angry constituents" are in fact people who have an axe to grind with the Tory government for one thing or another. This is simply another example of activism. It would be very interesting to see if the "anger" would have abated if these self-proclaimed "angry - constituents" were not using this matter as a platform to keep their agenda's front page. Come on Bob - it is soooooo painfully obvious that this a partisan exercise - take off your rose colored glasses and take Angry's post for what it is - bringing forth information that shines a light on this tiresome exercise.

Posted by: Alberta Girl at May 19, 2006 06:40 AM (nMd+I)

15 Geez, for a story the dextro-avian moonbats said had no legs whatsoever, you sure seem to be interested in keeping it running. Must be something to it after all. Altogether now (singing), "Whatever Lola wants, Lola gets. And little man, little Lola wants you."

Posted by: McQuandary at May 19, 2006 07:28 AM (FAa2V)

16 Angry is simply bringing forward the facts that many of these "angry constituents" are in fact people who have an axe to grind with the Tory government for one thing or another. This is simply another example of activism. Gosh, to think that people opposed to an undemocratic action that effectively nullifies the franchise are left-wing! Who knew? And left-wingers are activists! I hope Angry and Alberta Girl have had the good sense to alert Homeland Sec...er, CSIS.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 19, 2006 08:58 AM (Rn5Ph)

17 Oh man, get real. Steve didn't just publish their "lefty qualifications". Instead, he simultaneously argued--among other things--"... that no one knows how donations are being spent is just one reason voters might be concerned." Balderdash! It isn't the voters money! It's the doners money -- all of whom identified themselves. Hardly "hidden activism". I don't mind Steve complaining that all of these guys are non-riding partisan hacks that should mind their own business. Good on him for doing so. But I'm a bit confused why he thinks that Elections Canada should be stepping in. He concluded: "Shouldn't Vancouver-Kingsway residents know which groups are trying to influence their riding's politics -- even in a de-election? Until Elections Canada says so, the best we can do . . ." Get that? He is arguing that Elections Canada should institute rules and regulations on how people should be able to protest outside of an election. As if it isn't bad enough during an election. Now he wants us to have to register our names and keep our receipts in order to complain about the government at any time? Is this really what we want? If so, it's a strange breed of conservatism that grows around these parts.

Posted by: bob at May 19, 2006 10:30 AM (4EUc/)

18 The government has rules for everything, including protests. The groups can protest all they want. They can picket, heckle public appearances, write letters and spam. However when a group raises funds to undertake a mass media political campaign, Elections Canada, has the right to review the group's fund raising and spending... For all we know the ring leaders of this little circus could be granting themselves a salary... Which would be perfectly legal - but it does give them another motive to keep the issue alive.

Posted by: Curtis at May 19, 2006 11:48 AM (heo8b)

19 Actually the de-elect Emerson folks have become more than a joke. Kind of like the WWII Japanese soldiers who hid out in jungles for 20 years refusing to believe that the war was over. Everyone needs a hobby, and if they want to spend their time endlessly lobbying for something that's never going to happen, so be it. Observing their machinations is more entertaining than most TV sit-coms.

Posted by: Bruce at May 19, 2006 12:26 PM (QPPwV)

20 The theme here sounds like the outside agitator complaint gone mad. Nobody is allowed to complain who has an interest, and if they do not, why then they are outside agitators and have no business sticking their nose in..;... The sobering social fact that the saga of Emerson and other recent party jumpers illustrates is that politics in Canada is being hollowed out. One can see this in the numbers Statscan has produced based on the 2001 census on the distribution of income. Of the people who file tax returns more than one half have incomes of $23000 or less. The share of that group in total national income has DROPPED between 1990 and 2001 from 19% to 16.9%. And here is a true blow to the gut: The 10% of tax filers who had the highest incomes saw their share of national income RISE from 31.7 to 35.7 % lin the same period. And those in between? They lost or stood still. These numbers are absolutely devastating, given the short period covered. Where the poor are beling plunged deeper into despair, the middle classes are going no where, and the rich are becomeing outright bandits, there is plenty of cause for frustration and rage, but little for constructive political action. You can build or even maintain a democracy on numbers like that.

Posted by: garhane at May 19, 2006 12:50 PM (eKaWT)

21 Error: last sentence should say "You cannot build..." And the source is a statscan study called "Federal Personal INcome Tax; Slicing the Pie" by Martineau Cat no. 11-621-Mie --no. 024. Data summary see page 7

Posted by: garhane at May 19, 2006 12:54 PM (eKaWT)

22 BobR Sooner or later the 80% will get what they voted for in Jan 06? That's a comfort to them I am sure. Until the Spring of 08 the voters will just have to stuff it. I already know the Emerson plan. If he looks weak and unable to be re-elected he will end up the the Senate. The 80%is the combined Liberal and NDP vote in Vancouver/Kingsway.

Posted by: steve d. at May 19, 2006 02:26 PM (sw5R/)

23 Iam a statistical anomaly then. My income has gone from 18 000 to 35 000 in the past 2 years. Iam a crook? because my income nearly doubled? How about we try this on for size: People with low incomes, largely have themselves to blame, they didnt attend any post-secondary education, they havent continued to upgrade their skills thru Adult Continuing Education. In short they havent kept pace with the skills that employers demand of the new workforce. After finishing school it took me 7 years to land my first career related job. During those 7 years, I took every form of crappy dead end job I could find to make ends meet and pay off my useless student loans. Iam really sick and tired of those people who are stuck in the dead end life, blaming the world for their poverty, for their lack of achievement, for basically everything that has gone wrong in their sorry, pointless lives... So stop whining about the lack of income growth in the low end of the scale, get an education and move up the scale... Dont demand the scale be moved so that your lazy ass can live a middle-class TV-sit-com lifestyle as a short order cook.

Posted by: Curtis at May 19, 2006 03:07 PM (heo8b)

24 Garhane: Tax filing is complicated by the fact that there are reasons to file a return even when one is not taxable, typically to qualify for means-tested programs or credits, or to establish RRSP room. In addition, individual income is less relevant than household income - a low-income or non-earning person can enjoy a pretty nice life if they are a member of a household with adequate household income. In another StatsCan study they determined the percentage of households living below the "Low Income Cut-Off" or LICO. The usual caveat applies; LICO is not a poverty line, since it measures relative income levels instead of absolute inability to obtain the necessities of life. At the same time, movements in relative indicators are still relevant. Look at http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/060330/d060330a.htm - you'll have to scroll down about half to two-thirds of the page. There are two tables dealing with incidence of 'low income' (I'd paste them, but I am not sure how it would come out...): Low Income Rates by Family Types and Percentage of Persons in Low Income. Every singe family type showed a decrease in the percentage living below the LICO between 1996 and 2004 every one - Economic families, two persons or more; Senior families; Non-senior couples without children; Two-parent families with children; Female lone-parent families; and Single persons. Similarly, the proportion of people in low income declined - again, across the board. I find it difficult to accept your contention that the poorest in Canada are doing increasingly less well, and in any event, do not believe that this represents "politics being hollowed out" or in any way reflects upon Emerson's decision to cross the floor of the House.

Posted by: DCardno at May 19, 2006 03:59 PM (qN4VR)

25 Sorry - I should clarify one comment above: "Deaner" and "DCardno" are the same person -or at least they were the last time I checked. It was not an attempt to argue by sock puppet; just different "rememebr personal info" cookies on different machines. Apologies to bob (inter alia perhaps) for any confusion

Posted by: DCardno at May 19, 2006 04:14 PM (qN4VR)

26 If this is the biggest thorn in Harper's side, I am quite happy to sit back and watch. When the Tories win a majority government next time, the Emerson issue will be put to bed. I laughed when I saw the list of people. You gotta love BC. It's like a cereal, what isn't a fruit or a nut is a flake.

Posted by: jmo at May 19, 2006 04:36 PM (RaK4s)

27 "Does this sound like someone who doesn't want limits, or someone who wants them expanded? It sure sounds like the latter to me." Give it up Bob. Pointing out that a de-election campaign is as political as an election campaign is not hypocrisy. Pointing out that rules about political campaigns should be applied without exception is not hypocrisy. It doesn't matter whether he explicitly said that they should apply the rules or cancel them. The point is that the law is not being applied. And thus, a law is broken. One doesn't have to explicitly call something hypocritical for what that person is saying to make that implication. Did you never take high school English?

Posted by: Surecure at May 20, 2006 11:02 AM (5xF7M)

28 LMAO jmo! I love that line!

Posted by: Surecure at May 20, 2006 11:08 AM (5xF7M)

29 It doesn't matter whether he explicitly said that they should apply the rules or cancel them. Except that sometimes he says they should cancel them and sometimes he says they should expand them -- depending on when it suits his argument. Not exactly principled. The point is that the law is not being applied. And thus, a law is broken. Ummm, what? Which law is being broken exactly? There is no law against protesting the government outside of an election, and nor should there be. Or are you actually advocating increasing the government's control over our democratic rights of free speach? Really? Did you never take high school English? Terrific argument. I'm not sure how it applies to anything that is being discussed, but at least it made me laugh.

Posted by: Bob at May 20, 2006 01:39 PM (fnZDj)

30 Amazing how the advocates for "less government" want more and more of it when the government is acting for them. Today, a "recall Emerson" campaign should be subject to regulation; tomorrow, allow protest only if its licensed. What's next? A firearms registry?

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 20, 2006 01:49 PM (Rn5Ph)

31 Er...that's "it's." Must be my lack of high school English.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 20, 2006 02:12 PM (Rn5Ph)

32 Steved: 80% is not the combined Liberal/NDP vote in Vancouver-Kingsway; you must be adding Green votes as well. I get your point, though: you're claiming that everyone who voted for Emerson really meant to vote for a generic 'leftist candidate' instead, and is 'all riled up' that the candidate he actually voted for is a Conservative cabinet minister instead. It's not enough for you to claim that you do know these voters' minds and can speak for them; there's also a requirement on you to support a claim like that, for it to be believable. bob: The Campaign to De-Elect Emerson has not identified its membership or the source of its funding. The group that disclosed that information was Manuel Pereda's breakaway faction Message in the Air - it's plausible that the same people are funding both groups, but that's only an inference as no one knows who's funding Mike Watkins' CDEE. Dr. Dawg: You spoke of 'an undemocratic action that effectively nullifies the franchise'. Yet it seems that you are one of those calling for the Member of Parliament who was just elected to be thrown out and his seat be declared vacant pending a new election. How in the hell can you see that recommended course of action as anything but 'an undemocratic action that effectively nullifies the franchise"?

Posted by: George Dance at May 20, 2006 02:38 PM (V8DQH)

33 Steved: 80% is not the combined Liberal/NDP vote in Vancouver-Kingsway; you must be adding Green votes as well. I get your point, though: you're claiming that everyone who voted for Emerson really meant to vote for a generic 'leftist candidate' instead, and is 'all riled up' that the candidate he actually voted for is a Conservative cabinet minister instead. It's not enough for you to claim that you do know these voters' minds and can speak for them; there's also a requirement on you to support a claim like that, for it to be believable. bob: The Campaign to De-Elect Emerson has not identified its membership or the source of its funding. The group that disclosed that information was Manuel Pereda's breakaway faction Message in the Air - it's plausible that the same people are funding both groups, but that's only an inference as no one knows who's funding Mike Watkins' CDEE. Dr. Dawg: You spoke of 'an undemocratic action that effectively nullifies the franchise'. Yet it seems that you are one of those calling for the Member of Parliament who was just elected to be thrown out and his seat be declared vacant pending a new election. How in the hell can you see that recommended course of action as anything but 'an undemocratic action that effectively nullifies the franchise"? http://tinyurl.com/huyld

Posted by: George Dance at May 20, 2006 02:38 PM (V8DQH)

34 GeorgeDance I don't claim to know the voters minds. I do know they elected a Liberal. I think it is safe to say they expected Emerson to remain a Liberal. I do know that the riding has never voted Conservative. Although I cannot predict with absolute certainty that voters will opt for the Liberal or NDP candidate next time I would be bold enough to say it is likely.

Posted by: steve d. at May 20, 2006 03:05 PM (sw5R/)

35 Dr. Dawg: You spoke of 'an undemocratic action that effectively nullifies the franchise'. Yet it seems that you are one of those calling for the Member of Parliament who was just elected to be thrown out and his seat be declared vacant pending a new election. How in the hell can you see that recommended course of action as anything but 'an undemocratic action that effectively nullifies the franchise"? I assume you're serious, so let me note first of all that most people vote for the party, not the individual,* in Canadian elections. Suppose your man or woman, on getting elected, decided to sit with the party you'd just voted against before Parliament had even reconvened? NOW do you get it? *Source: http://www.elections.ca/eca/eim/article_search/article.asp?id=123⟨=e&frmPageSize=&textonly=false

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 20, 2006 03:58 PM (Rn5Ph)

36 Well one thing is certain: Emerson couldn't panhandle sucessfully in Vancouver-Kingsway let alone "win" another election. Hard to say where in BC he could win a seat, even if he runs openly as a Tory this time. It may turn out the way a poster above said, and Harper will just appoint him to Cabinet. As a member of the loose-knit "De-Elect Emerson campaign" I can assure you that any money that is collected is freely given by people of all walks of life and many different ridings all across Canada for the purpose of trying to bring democracy back to V-K. People buy the buttons and lawn signs, and take the time to send our pre-printed postcards to their MP's and to Mssrs Emerson and Harper. Even some Conservative voters have given their support, which says a lot about how much damage Emerson and Harper did to democracy in V-K. We won't quit. Though we may not win the battle to hold Harper and Emerson accountable for the pillaging of democracy in Vancouver-Kingsway, we will keep fighting. Anything less, and we all might as well roll over and let Harper, Emerson et al select who they want to "govern" Canada. Steadfastly, Locusta emersonia

Posted by: Locusta emersonia at May 20, 2006 04:03 PM (nnihx)

37 Steve d. Wrong, the voters in V-K elected Emmerson to represent them, not a Liberal, not a NDP, nor a Consvative. That is the way our federal parliamentry system is suppose to work. That is way floor crossing should never be eliminated. The fact that you and the de-elect Emerson campaign do not understan this fundamental of Canadian politics is typical. The system needs to be reformed to break the power of the party.

Posted by: dkjones at May 20, 2006 11:19 PM (CZIJU)

38 It's amazing... you guys simply don't have the competency to understand. Well, I guess there are some people who just can't add 2 plus 2 without getting 22. I'll leave you to your little world.

Posted by: Surecure at May 20, 2006 11:46 PM (5xF7M)

39 I also wonder where all the money went that was collected for lawn signs----because---I drive through that constituency almost daily and so far have seen ONE lawn sign. So where does all the money go? Horny Toad

Posted by: Horny Toad at May 21, 2006 02:29 AM (vntGg)

40 Oh, don't have any concern over that Horny Toad. As bob and Dawg like to point out, this isn't an issue of tracking political donations to see where the money goes.

Posted by: Surecure at May 21, 2006 08:23 AM (5xF7M)

41 dkjones I am all for breaking the power of the party. I understand that crossing the floor is also part of the game. However, like most other unfortunate occurences you never expect it will happen to you. When a voter enter the voting booth he doesn't think about whether or not their man is going to cross the floor or become corrupt, or any number of other negatives. They enter the voting booth in hope and good faith that the person is going to stand for the things he said he stood for. In this case Emerson said he stood for Liberal beliefs against Conservative beliefs. There is no getting away from that fact. To say a man had a change of beliefs a week after the election is laughable. To say he is a political opportunist would be more correct. Should we be electing opportunists or men of principle?

Posted by: steve d. at May 21, 2006 11:21 AM (sw5R/)

42 It's amazing... you guys simply don't have the competency to understand. Well, I guess there are some people who just can't add 2 plus 2 without getting 22. Wow! Another terrific argument. You're on fire in this thread. Help me understand. You claim that a law has been broken, but you can't seem point to any such law. Failing that, you seem to believe that if a law preventing unregistered, unlimited, political demonstrations by private citizens using their own money outside of elections doesn't exist, it ought to -- despite the fact that you, yourself, don't like the law that prevents such spending during elections. I guess you're right, I am confused.

Posted by: bob at May 22, 2006 12:46 PM (fnZDj)

43 Hats off to you, bob. There's really nothing much left to say. Game, set and match.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at May 22, 2006 05:43 PM (Rn5Ph)

44 "Suppose your man or woman, on getting elected, decided to sit with the party you'd just voted against before Parliament had even reconvened? NOW do you get it?" Not all of it, Dawg. I can get that I'd probably be upset, and I get that some people in Van-King (some of whom voted for Emerson) are upset with his party switch; almost 1000 have been upset enough to do something like join a protest or put up a free lawn sign; a couple have been upset enough to vandalize Emerson's office. That's not news; some voters get upset whenever this type of thing happens. What I don't get is your conclusion that, because these people are upset, that somehow makes Emerson's actions (unlike those of every MP who's done the same thing) undemocratic - and that therefore tossing the MP out of office, throwing out the votes of everyone who elected him, suddenly becomes the democratic thing to do.

Posted by: George Dance at May 23, 2006 06:21 AM (vJoqB)

45 Everybody who voted for Emerson knew that as an MP he would have the right to cross the floor, and might do it. Just like any other successful candidate.

Posted by: ebt at May 23, 2006 01:36 PM (7y2db)

46 Shopping for cheap jerseys? Our top reviewed site shows you the power of a comparison search engine. Save money and find discounts on top brands, or products. Can't decide what you want? Dig in a little, read product specs & reviews Cheap nfl jerseys ★★★★★cheap jerseys, nfl jerseys cheap free shipping and fast delivery.Shopping now!

Posted by: Jaguars jersey Cheap at November 29, 2012 10:31 AM (wmdzq)

47 Melody Spring

Posted by: outlet at December 19, 2012 10:14 AM (cSvSl)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The people for and against the long-gun registry have been tossing allegations back and forth about how effective the registry has been in fighting crime. Often this takes the form of statistics. For: An average of 5,000 queries a day are made by law enforcement agencies. Against: Virtually all the queries are automatically generated by local police computers whenever any kind of information is accessed, including outstanding parking fines.

The problem is that it is hard to really understand how useful the registry is when you look at broad collections of numbers.

So I decided to focus on one particular event, chosen at random, described by the Coalition for Gun Control:

In May 2000, the firearm registry played a pivotal role in uncovering what is alleged to be one of the largest and most sophisticated firearm smuggling rings in North America. Likely destined for the black market, nearly 23,000 firearms and their components were seized.

Wow, 23,000 firearms kept off of Canadian streets! That is impressive.

Well, the truth is more complicated, as it always is.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 11:49 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 1328 words, total size 9 kb.

A tragedy in Sault Ste. Marie, the death of Constable Don Doucet in a traffic accident involving a drunk driver, is being used by one labour union as a springboard for media attention:

The Canadian Union of Public Employees has chosen tomorrow, a day on which MPP David Orazietti and hundreds of other Saultites will mourn the death of Constable Don Doucet, to picket outside Orazietti's office.

Gilles Bouffard of CUPE's Ontario regional office in Scarborough advised SooToday.com this afternoon that CUPE-represented long-term care workers from the Davey Home will hold an information picket starting at 3:30 p.m. tomorrow outside Orazietti's office, protesting recent cutbacks at the home and a lack of adequate provincial funding for long-term care services in Ontario.

So what has the local paper, SooToday, decided to do? Will it provide the union the attention it so desperately wants?

SooToday.com News has informed Bouffard that we will be boycotting tomorrow's event out of respect for Constable Doucet's family, friends and the hundreds of grieving peace officers who are travelling to our community from across North America for tomorrow's funeral mass at the Sault Armoury.

A local resident pointed me towards this story, and tells me people are very upset with the union leadership:

[This] story has certainly made me and many other residents of my community angry.

Members of CUPE are going to be picketing our local MPP's office tommorow because Premiere McGuinty is going to be in town.

What is making people angry is that McGuinty is in town to honor a police officer, Constable Don Doucet, who was killed in the line of duty by a drunk driver.

Here's hoping that anger does not boil over. The only thing that could make this situation worse is a confrontation.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 12:06 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.

Where leaders lead, others follow:

Canadian troops will spend two extra years fighting to bring democracy and security to Afghanistan’s most perilous corner after Prime Minister Stephen Harper won a tense political showdown over his divided opposition rivals.

A motion to extend the deployment barely passed 149 to 145 Wednesday night. The NDP, Bloc Quebecois and most Liberals, including key leadership candidates such as Stephane Dion, Ken Dryden and Joe Volpe, voted against it.

Other leadership candidates, Michael Ignatieff and Scott Brison, voted for the longer commitment in perilous Afghanistan, as did interim Liberal leader Bill Graham.

Former prime minister Paul Martin was absent.

Put aside, for a brief moment, the strategic issues of Canadians holding off the Taliban, and by extension, Al Qaeda (Canada as a target for terrorists, our relationship with the US, etc, etc) and consider the political implications.

Stephen Harper and the Conservatives in a weak minority situation put forward a motion that is roundly opposed by all three opposition parties on a topic that for many Canadians represents the deepest held misgivings about where post-9/11 Canada is going...and Stephen Harper wins!

The vote is a political victory for Harper, who can characterize the result as an indication of the will of Parliament, while exposing divisions within the Liberal ranks.

Coming out of the House, Harper took a few shots at the opposition.

“I think the truth of the matter is support for the mission is a lot stronger than the vote,” Harper said. “There were a lot of people in there who just wanted to vote against the government. But certain Liberals took a principled position and Canada is much better for it.”

For the Liberals, a split is forming. Michael Ignatieff and Scott Brison for the extension. Ken Dryden, Joe Volpe, Stephane Dion, Hedy Fry against. With the Conservatives achieving another parliamentary victory, there will be bitter recriminations lobbed during the Liberal leadership race. The party itself will crack violently along this fault line, and it's anyone guess what will be the end result. Meanwhile, any "Unite-the-Left" push to merge the Liberals and the NDP will be shelved until the Liberals sort this out. The NDP will not easily forgive the Liberal Party for allowing a free vote for the Liberal caucus.

For the Canadian left in general, a panic will start. If Stephen Harper can win this vote, what other votes can he win? Joining the US in developing a ballistic missile defense system? Redefining marriage as a heterosexuals-only institution? Property rights? For the left, there has been an assumption that Stephen Harper would be hobbled in a minority government. Bide their time, and at the next election in a year or so, the left would win again. The Conservatives could do little lasting damage -- lower taxes a modest amount, for example, which would be hard to increase, but most things could be rolled back. Instead, to the horror of the left, who have assumed that though they lost the election they still ruled the country, Stephen Harper is succeeding at far more substantive and transformative changes, and might continue to do so.

For the Conservatives, more headlines tomorrow about another parliamentary win. More comparisons of the accomplishments of Stephen Harper versus the ineffectual run of Paul Martin as prime minister. And the hard work of making sure this new commitment in Afghanistan is a success. But if anyone can make this work, this government can.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 11:29 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 580 words, total size 4 kb.

From the Toronto Sun, on the release of the auditor general's report on the long-gun registry:

Liberal MP Irwin Cotler denied the Liberals deliberately tried to hide money.

Well, the accusation in the auditor general's is far more specific than just "the Liberals".

Here are some choice quotes from the report itself (my emphasis added):

We examined the progress made in the management of the Canadian Firearms Program since 2002, when we reported that we were unable to complete our audit of the cost of implementing the program. We said the financial information was unreliable and did not fairly present the net costs of the program. We also reported that the Department of Justice was not giving Parliament enough information to allow for effective scrutiny of the program or to explain the dramatic increase in its costs. We made only one recommendation in 2002: The Department of Justice should rectify these gaps in financial reporting.

4.1 In 1995, Parliament passed the Firearms Act and amendments to the Criminal Code to establish the Canadian Firearms Program under the principal responsibility of the Department of Justice Canada.

4.4 In our December 2002 Report, Chapter 10, we examined the costs of implementing the Canadian Firearms Program. We stopped the audit of the program's financial information because the data was unreliable, and we reported that the Department of Justice had not fairly presented the net cost of the program. We also reported that the Department had not provided Parliament with enough information to allow for effective scrutiny of the program or to explain the dramatic increase in its costs.

4.12 In December 2002, the Department of Justice had requested Parliament's approval for Supplementary Estimates to bring the Centre's 2002-03 planned spending to $113.5 million. Parliament at first would not approve the Supplementary Estimates as presented, but in March 2003 it agreed to do so based on the Minister's commitment that the Centre's spending for 2002-03 would not exceed $100.2 million.

4.13 The first accounting error. The Department later reported the Centre's actual spending for 2002-03 at $78.3 million . However, this amount did not include the estimated $39 million in CFIS II development costs incurred that year.

4.14 In our opinion, in leaving the $39 million unrecorded the Department of Justice did not comply with the Treasury Board's Policy on Payables at Year-End (PAYE). This policy states that costs for large system development are to be recorded as expenditures against a departmental appropriation in the year when they are incurred, rather than when they become due and payable under a contract. Furthermore, had the Department of Justice recorded this amount in its 2002-03 expenditures, while its total spending would have remained within its voted appropriation, the Centre's actual spending would have been $117.3 million, $17.1 million over the limit to which the Minister had committed.

The first audit was delivered in December of 2002. Martin Cauchon was Minister of Justice. He would be minister for one more year -- in December 2003 he was tossed out of cabinet as part of the purge of Chretienites when Paul Martin took over the leadership of the Liberal Party. The new minister was responsible for following through on the issues raised by the audit. Martin Cauchon's successor was minister from December 12, 2003 until February 5, 2006, when Conservative Vic Toews took over the ministry.

Just over two years.

And what a busy two years!

That minister promised to parliament in March 2003 that the Centre would not spend more than $100.2 million. That minister later reported to parliament that the spending was actually $78.3 million, and pulled this trick off by shuffling $39 million to the following year.

Of course, you would think that 2004 would now be a problem. But not for this minister.

In January 2004, that minister selectively recorded costs to keep the expenditures below the promised levels. At first, the Treasury Board Secretariat (that arm of Treasury Board responsible for accountability of ethics) required those costs to be reported as part of the Centre's expenditures, but "subsequent consultations" convinced the Secretariat to approve taking $21.8 million off the books altogether, hiding the money in the consolidated Accounts of Canada, instead of in the Centre's budget.

The name of this minister of justice? Irwin Cotler, of course.

So when Irwin Cotler insists that "the Liberals" were not deliberately hiding the money, he really means he was not deliberately hiding the money. What a modest guy.

In a way, Cotler did not hide the money. The extra expenditures were subsequently reported. But only after it was too late to do anything about it.

The subtle difference between that and hiding the money is lost on me. Maybe Irwin Cotler can explain it in detail while sitting in a witness box at a board of inquiry.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:53 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 813 words, total size 6 kb.

The long-gun registry has always been a target of the Conservatives, who apparently are going to try to kill it now, in this minority government:

According to CTV News, the Tories will start taking action to dismantle that registry as early as today.

CTV reported last night that Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day is expected to announce an amnesty for rifle and shotgun owners. That would mean the registry would only apply to handguns and semi-automatic weapons.

CTV also reported the responsibility for the registry will be transferred to the RCMP from the Canada Firearms Centre.

But all three opposition parties, the Liberals (who created this boondoggle), the NDP (which has become essentially an urban-only party, so has little reason to care about rural sensibilities when it comes to rifles and shotguns), and the Bloc Quebecois (which shares similar sensibilities with the NDP when it comes to social issues), are all against dismantling the registry:

But the minority Conservative government can expect a rough ride.

The Conservatives face three opposition parties in Parliament that all support gun control and have said they will oppose moves to scrap it.

The registry has been a financial and managerial nightmare from its inception:

[Auditor General Sheila Fraser's] report today is coming more than three years after she dropped a bombshell audit that detailed a nearly $1 billion cost overrun in the gun control program, and criticized the Liberal government for not bringing the ballooning budget to Parliament's attention.

The Canada Firearms Centre, which administers the program, operates on a budget of roughly $83 million a year. Of that amount, supporters say, just $10 million to $15 million goes to the costs of the long-gun registry, which covers rifles and shotguns.

That report, apparently, is what the Tories will use to win any vote on altering the registry:

Yesterday, Saskatchewan MP Garry Breitkreuz, the Conservatives' critic of the gun control program, said that armed with the second report, the Tories may get enough votes in Parliament to act.

"I hope it will be a wakeup call for the other parties, that this firearms issue is not going away, that it's still a black hole of a money pit," said Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville).

Where are these votes going to come from? I don't see any opposition party voting with the Conservatives on this. I might be wrong, but let's assume I'm right. That leaves two possibilities. Despite the phrasing of the report, that the Tories would "get enough votes" to support changes to the registry, in truth it means that the opposition parties, unwilling to risk prompting an election (though I doubt this would be a vote of confidence), would simply arrange for enough members to be absent from the House when the vote comes.

Or the report means what it says -- some Liberal, NDP, or BQ MPs will vote against their party in support of a Conservative motion to alter the gun registry. Liberals, most likely. That is a huge thing. Besides bucking party unity, which is always remarkable, it would have considerable impact on the Liberal leadership race. Any Liberal MPs who vote against the party would then be in a position to argue that a new Liberal Party needs to face up with the policy failures of the past, including the much criticized gun registry. That would throw down the gauntlet for other Liberals, in particular those vying for the leadership, to defend the financial and managerial nightmare left behind by the Liberal Party, or to join in criticizing this foundation stone of Liberal Party policy. It would also draw a line between Liberals continuing to support the Chretien-Martin legacy, and those willing to jettison that legacy.

Is this why the Conservatives are pushing on the registry? One of the five priorities is a new emphasis on law and order. Certainly the gun registry is part of this priority, but given how controversial the registry is, the Conservatives could be forgiven for pulling on other threads in the law and order tapestry until they win a majority government. But it might be that the Conservative strategists have deduced that dealing with gun registry now is likely to result in political dividends as well as policy ones.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 11:08 AM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 712 words, total size 5 kb.

In the struggle to oust David Emerson for the crime of representing the people who elected him, the tone has often gotten nasty. People have been arrested after pushing and shoving at sit-ins, for example.

As we all know, Emerson was elected by the people of Vancounver-Kingsway while running for the Liberals. He crossed the floor to join the new Harper cabinet, a move that has been endorsed by the premier of British Columbia and the mayor of Vancouver. Nevertheless, there are many people trying to force a new by-election.

One of those people is Manuel Pereda. He is not a political operator like anti-Emerson activist Kevin Chalmers, but works for a Vancouver renovations company.

Perhaps that explains Pereda's effort to meet Emerson half-way:

Emerson spoke briefly about the tone of his recent meeting with protester Manuel Pereda, which recently broke new ground in establishing a line of communication between the two groups.

"Mr. Pereda and I are in many respects not that far apart," Emerson said. "The issues are really more complex than most people really know about with crossing the floor... If you're going to not let people cross the floor then you are putting more power in the hands of the political party and is that truly a democracy?"

A constructive meeting? An effort to find a way to make those constituents of Vancouver-Kingsway who are angry realize they are still represented in Ottawa?

Then why this curious statement?

Both Manuel Pereda and the De-Elect Emerson Campaign have said that Manuel Pereda acted on his own in meeting with Emerson.

Pereda the traitor? The De-Elect Emerson Campaign is the operation run by Kevin Chalmers, a former Emerson campaign worker and a Liberal Party operator.

Apparently the problem was that Emerson had set a condition on the meeting with Pereda. Since Emerson has stated he is unwilling to resign, he felt any meeting on that topic would be a waste of time. But could there still be a useful discussion without getting into resignations?

Pereda thought so. Kevin Chalmers, on his website, makes it clear that any meeting with Emerson must focus on Emerson's resignation:

Recently, after being forced by the presence of national media to accept a constituent's meeting request, Emerson met with one of the many disenfranchised voters of this riding. Emerson only agreed to do so only on the condition that the voter, Manuel Pereda, vowed to not demand for his resignation.

The Campaign to De-Elect David Emerson finds this price of admission far too high.

And that's why Kevin Chalmers doesn't get a meeting, while Manuel Pereda has actually seen some progress, as reported on Pereda's website:

After the meeting, Mr. Pereda stated that he planned to abandon his demands for Mr. Emerson’s resignation, as the minister’s mind is set and Mr. Pereda prefers to use his energy to begin a broader, non-partisan debate on the electoral system. Mr. Pereda’s stance aims at opening the dialogue with all political parties and citizens groups to encourage the start of electoral reform debates. Mr. Pereda made it clear that his stance represents the view of only some of the Message in the Air supporters and that he will continue to applaud the efforts of other groups demanding a new by-election.

Amusingly, Pereda was also forced to highlight the schism in the anti-Emerson crusade (while at the same time trying to downplay it):

Members of the media have been asked to correct reports that were published stating that Mr.Pereda is still a leader of the Campaign to De-elect David Emerson. Mr. Pereda was one of the initiators of the CDDE but he is no longer directly involved in that campaign. Mr. Pereda still has De-elect Emerson signs outside his home because he supports the idea of keeping the issue alive until electoral reform debates get started. Mr. Pereda now chairs the Message in the Air Society.

One wonders if there were any fireworks at the meeting between Chalmers and Pereda. Did Pereda try to convince the true believers at the CDDE that his way was likely to pay dividends? Did Pereda leave, or was he given the bum's rush out the door?

Why is Kevin Chalmers being so dogmatic? Why won't he participate with Pereda in an effort to reform the electoral system in an organized and measured manner instead of relying on sit-ins and airplane stunts?

As Manuel Pereda said, he is interested in the "broader" debate. Chalmers is only interested in Emerson. For Chalmers, this is personal. When something is personal like that, it is either because that specific person has been seriously hurt (so this is about vengeance) or that specific person stands to gain tremendously by winning (so this is about fame and fortune). My gut tells me Chalmers thinks he has something to gain from taking Emerson down -- the fame and fortune motive. That's why he's not interested in the broader implications of electoral reform, and that's why he has no time for people like Pereda who aren't willing to stay focused on Emerson to the exclusion of all else.

The real question is, though, whether there are other people like Pereda in the CDDE who just want to have the same discussion Pereda had, and so can be pealed away from Chalmers.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:15 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 884 words, total size 6 kb.